Do you support evolution? (atheist, Muslim, bible, quote)
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.
Yes I'm aware of that, which means both camps were wrong. And it is a pure assumption by you to suggest that Neaderthals show a branching out into a new species. There is zero evidence for that, and you can only make such a statement based on Evolutionist dogma, and not sound science. They were a seperate species, and your own people will tell you that. I can recall in High School how we were told that Neaderthals were part of the human missing link. As it turns out, they are not, and never were.
Huh? I think you misunderstood his post. The very fact that Neanderthals were not a direct ancestor means that they were a "branch" of a different species with very human-like traits. What he was saying was that Creationists, for ages, said that Neanderthals were just malformed humans but humans nonetheless.
While it was believed for a long time that Neanderthals were somewhat our predecessors it was hard to prove. You really have to pay attention to how things are worded, Campbell. If science makes a hypothesis on what they think something might be does not mean it is being asserted as truth. Saying something to the effect of "We think that Neanderthals were direct ancestors of humans" is not the same as "Neanderthals were direct ancestors of humans." Science will not make such a bold claim to assert that something is utter fact unless it can be proven. That is the beauty of science, Campbell. It is self-correcting and it's done through empirical research and examination. It wasn't Creationist scientists who discovered the branching off instead of a direct link, Campbell. It was regular, old fashioned scientific empiricism at its' best.
I love how you continue to bring up "fallacies" that science makes without taking into account that it was science itself that disovered the mistake.
Yes I'm aware of that, which means both camps were wrong. And it is a pure assumption by you to suggest that Neaderthals show a branching out into a new species. There is zero evidence for that, and you can only make such a statement based on Evolutionist dogma, and not sound science. They were a seperate species, and your own people will tell you that. I can recall in High School how we were told that Neaderthals were part of the human missing link. As it turns out, they are not, and never were.
You creationists would still be claiming Neanderthals were humans today if you hadn't been proven wrong because you don't follow the scientific method, you start with one story and stick to it. Also, there is overwhelming evidence that Neanderthals were just another branch from the primate ancestral stock. They were very similar to human beings and existed until fairly recent times. Their fossils indicate they lived from about 230,000 years ago until becoming extinct about 30,000 years ago. So if they didn't evolve from other primates where did they come from?
Huh? I think you misunderstood his post. The very fact that Neanderthals were not a direct ancestor means that they were a "branch" of a different species with very human-like traits. What he was saying was that Creationists, for ages, said that Neanderthals were just malformed humans but humans nonetheless.
While it was believed for a long time that Neanderthals were somewhat our predecessors it was hard to prove. You really have to pay attention to how things are worded, Campbell. If science makes a hypothesis on what they think something might be does not mean it is being asserted as truth. Saying something to the effect of "We think that Neanderthals were direct ancestors of humans" is not the same as "Neanderthals were direct ancestors of humans." Science will not make such a bold claim to assert that something is utter fact unless it can be proven. That is the beauty of science, Campbell. It is self-correcting and it's done through empirical research and examination. It wasn't Creationist scientists who discovered the branching off instead of a direct link, Campbell. It was regular, old fashioned scientific empiricism at its' best.
I love how you continue to bring up "fallacies" that science makes without taking into account that it was science itself that disovered the mistake.
I was agreeing that Creationist did teach that Neanderthals were human. They did not believe they were a link to humans. Evolutionist believed they were. And in both cases, they were both wrong.
And one of the big problems I see with the Theory of Evolution is the way it is often taught. Students that inbrace the Theory have not look at the evidence presented in the same light as you do. Evolution is said to be based on hypothesis, yet often it is taught as a fact that cannot be denied. I know this was the way I was taught back in 1967, and I have spoken with many on this site, and others that imbrace the theory with that same confidnce. Yet I do not see evidence presented that would inspire that sort of confidence.
And Creationist may not of been the one's who discovered the fallacies of the Neanderthals, yet their presence makes sure that these little facts do not fall through the cracks. It appears to me when Evolutionist believe they have discovered that missing link, they often bring out the brass band to annonce this discovery. Yet, when they discover it is not, we have to turn to one of their yearly publications to see a small retraction with little fanfare. Even the link I was directed to was showing all these skulls as transionals. Yet we now know that Rhodesian Man was not a transional at all. However, in the link, he is considered to be one. There is so much misinformation out there, that it's hard to seperate truth from error. And this often leaves believers in Evolution with a strange mix of Evolutionary beliefs. And I'm finding that their beliefs are often based on evidence that has been dismised, yet at the same time still imbraced as true, by believers in Evolution. And some of that evidence is still being printed up as fact when it is not.
Campbell34, You are constantly critical of evolution and try to point out what you consider to be its shortcomings but what about your own beliefs? Isn't it a fact that creationists consider their religious convictions that are the foundation for creationism to be off limits to scrutiny and doubt? There is absolutely no evidence for young earth creationism and everything we find in nature contradicts it. We see no serious scientific endeavors that actually find evidence to support it, all we see are alot of crackpot websites that repeat the same irrational explanations to refute well known scientific facts such as the ancient age of the earth. If creationism is real why doesn't somebody publish the scientific evidence that proves it in the same manner that real scientists do?
Campbell34, You are constantly critical of evolution and try to point out what you consider to be its shortcomings but what about your own beliefs? Isn't it a fact that creationists consider their religious convictions that are the foundation for creationism to be off limits to scrutiny and doubt? There is absolutely no evidence for young earth creationism and everything we find in nature contradicts it. We see no serious scientific endeavors that actually find evidence to support it, all we see are alot of crackpot websites that repeat the same irrational explanations to refute well known scientific facts such as the ancient age of the earth. If creationism is real why doesn't somebody publish the scientific evidence that proves it in the same manner that real scientists do?
I don't believe all Creationist believe their religious convictions should be off limits to scrutiny or doubt. I believe many of them believe that their religious beliefs are supported by science. And those arguements should be considered in the court of public opinion. Yet it is the high courts that bar such a debate. And the courts do this even when most Americans believe that creation science should be considered in the classroom. Actually, it is the Evolutionist that believe that their arguements should be off limits. The fact is, there is a lot of evidence that refutes Evolution, yet because of Evolution, much of that evidence will be ignored, or never see the light of day. The Bible does not give a clear picture as to how everything came into existance, yet we have enoght of the story to know that Evolution is a false teaching. The Bible on the other hand has a great deal of evidence to supports it's truth. Much of the Bible is being confirmed by recent discoveries. Non believers are finding it harder to write off the Bible as they did in the past because of these discoveries. And for those of us who believe the Bible, it is becoming a much more trusted Book because of that. Evolution is based on assumptions that you yourself said can changed as new information arrives. Yet the Bible does not change at all. The Bibles truth is just being confirmed. The sad part of Evolution is, because so many have bought into it, real science cannot move forward because so many are stuck defending a lie. Evolution is based on assumptions, and there is no real evidence that one can point to. If Evolution were true, then by now we would see those (stone) fossils showing us the truth of that change. As I have said before, we have fossils of everything, we just have no fossils showing Evolutionary change. Don't you find that just a little strange?
I don't believe all Creationist believe their religious convictions should be off limits to scrutiny or doubt. I believe many of them believe that their religious beliefs are supported by science. And those arguements should be considered in the court of public opinion. Yet it is the high courts that bar such a debate. And the courts do this even when most Americans believe that creation science should be considered in the classroom. Actually, it is the Evolutionist that believe that their arguements should be off limits. The fact is, there is a lot of evidence that refutes Evolution, yet because of Evolution, much of that evidence will be ignored, or never see the light of day. The Bible does not give a clear picture as to how everything came into existance, yet we have enoght of the story to know that Evolution is a false teaching. The Bible on the other hand has a great deal of evidence to supports it's truth. Much of the Bible is being confirmed by recent discoveries. Non believers are finding it harder to write off the Bible as they did in the past because of these discoveries. And for those of us who believe the Bible, it is becoming a much more trusted Book because of that. Evolution is based on assumptions that you yourself said can changed as new information arrives. Yet the Bible does not change at all. The Bibles truth is just being confirmed. The sad part of Evolution is, because so many have bought into it, real science cannot move forward because so many are stuck defending a lie. Evolution is based on assumptions, and there is no real evidence that one can point to. If Evolution were true, then by now we would see those (stone) fossils showing us the truth of that change. As I have said before, we have fossils of everything, we just have no fossils showing Evolutionary change. Don't you find that just a little strange?
Campbell, have you even looked at any of the information that any of us have supplied you or have you simply written it off as not true because it doesn't fit your model? The reason I ask, is because several pages back someone linked to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School Board case in Dover, Pennsylvania. Campbell, if EVER there were a time for the ID/Creationist platform to be heard then this was their time. I mean, this is when they should bring their big guns out and really take these evil, bad scientists to town on all of this research they've been doing. After all, it was a highly Conservative Supreme Court Judge appointed by Darth Bush himself who was sitting in on it. So, if there were EVER a freaking chance that ID could have a case than this should have been it. What ended up happening? Well, the ID movement was almost thrown out of court on more than one occassion and some of them were sternly lectured for being perjurous to the hearing. They were found to be caught in downright lies and their so-called "experts" were utterly humiliated in court.
Campbell, this was the big chance. This was the chance for all this hard "scientific" work that's being done in your community to prevail. On top of that, this was also a chance to prove evolution wrong. All they had to do was use the same arguments that you have, right? Because that's what they did. And many other faulty ones. Nonetheless, they were humiliated and many of them didn't even show up for the trial.
Campbell, I'm not going to lie. ID/Creationism is about as bad as it gets in terms of pseudoscience. It is quite clearly not supported in any way by any sort of scientific research. It's not because scientists want to write off ID, it's because there's no evidence to support it. Rather, the evidence DOES lie with evolution. It lies in mitochondrial DNA, it lies within the fossil record, and it lies within the triangulation method. Evolution would still be a wonderfully supported theory EVEN IF we had not a single fossil on hand. Yet, we have fossils. Thousands of them. And, if you'd ever open your eyes and visit a museum, you'd see just how transitional they are.
Campbell, I've got really nothing left to say to you. You're obviously not willing to get yourself into this argument and you consistently backpedal and change the topic. Your responses are filled with red herrings, strawmen, and arguments of unfalsifiability. That's fine, I suppose, if we're in 3rd grade. But, my visual imagery of you right now is that guy from Monty Python who gets his arms and legs cut off only to say they are mere "flesh wounds". You've provided absolutely nothing valuable to this conversation and I'm beginning to wonder if you're not just trying to troll the board?
You creationists would still be claiming Neanderthals were humans today if you hadn't been proven wrong because you don't follow the scientific method, you start with one story and stick to it. Also, there is overwhelming evidence that Neanderthals were just another branch from the primate ancestral stock. They were very similar to human beings and existed until fairly recent times. Their fossils indicate they lived from about 230,000 years ago until becoming extinct about 30,000 years ago. So if they didn't evolve from other primates where did they come from?
Why do you believe that had to evolve, and what evidence do you have to suggest anything ever evolved?
Campbell, have you even looked at any of the information that any of us have supplied you or have you simply written it off as not true because it doesn't fit your model? The reason I ask, is because several pages back someone linked to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School Board case in Dover, Pennsylvania. Campbell, if EVER there were a time for the ID/Creationist platform to be heard then this was their time. I mean, this is when they should bring their big guns out and really take these evil, bad scientists to town on all of this research they've been doing. After all, it was a highly Conservative Supreme Court Judge appointed by Darth Bush himself who was sitting in on it. So, if there were EVER a freaking chance that ID could have a case than this should have been it. What ended up happening? Well, the ID movement was almost thrown out of court on more than one occassion and some of them were sternly lectured for being perjurous to the hearing. They were found to be caught in downright lies and their so-called "experts" were utterly humiliated in court.
Campbell, this was the big chance. This was the chance for all this hard "scientific" work that's being done in your community to prevail. On top of that, this was also a chance to prove evolution wrong. All they had to do was use the same arguments that you have, right? Because that's what they did. And many other faulty ones. Nonetheless, they were humiliated and many of them didn't even show up for the trial.
Campbell, I'm not going to lie. ID/Creationism is about as bad as it gets in terms of pseudoscience. It is quite clearly not supported in any way by any sort of scientific research. It's not because scientists want to write off ID, it's because there's no evidence to support it. Rather, the evidence DOES lie with evolution. It lies in mitochondrial DNA, it lies within the fossil record, and it lies within the triangulation method. Evolution would still be a wonderfully supported theory EVEN IF we had not a single fossil on hand. Yet, we have fossils. Thousands of them. And, if you'd ever open your eyes and visit a museum, you'd see just how transitional they are.
Campbell, I've got really nothing left to say to you. You're obviously not willing to get yourself into this argument and you consistently backpedal and change the topic. Your responses are filled with red herrings, strawmen, and arguments of unfalsifiability. That's fine, I suppose, if we're in 3rd grade. But, my visual imagery of you right now is that guy from Monty Python who gets his arms and legs cut off only to say they are mere "flesh wounds". You've provided absolutely nothing valuable to this conversation and I'm beginning to wonder if you're not just trying to troll the board?
Most of the evidence you have supplied is refuted by your own people. And when I point that out, you just move one to new evidence until that is refuted. And the only way you guys can keep creation science out of the classroom is by going to court. For if it was put up for a vote, the American people would allow it to be taught.
Most of the evidence you have supplied is refuted by your own people. And when I point that out, you just move one to new evidence until that is refuted. And the only way you guys can keep creation science out of the classroom is by going to court. For if it was put up for a vote, the American people would allow it to be taught.
You're probably right about the American people voting for it to be taught. That's the pathetic part. We're one of the only country's in the world where this is an issue and we're also detrimentally falling in our science and math skills as compared to the rest of the world. So, it doesn't surprise me that a growing population of truly uneducated would vote something uneducational (in scientific regards) into the school system.
And please tell me... what have I not addressed? I think if you go through and read my posts, you'll find that I meticulously broke down each of your arguments with lengthy refutations. Heck, I even put pictures on one of them
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.
Feeding the Troll...
