|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A good summary of so called human evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2590 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Dio, what you mean to say, is that you haven;t got the logic or intelligence to debate with me, as evolution doesn;t answer your prayers, and all you end up with is 'luck and chance responses' and maybe a few snide remarks.
If you want to defeat me or creationists then tell us who were our forefathers, who were our primate ancestors ? Nobody else can, so give it a try.... or make something up. Or then maybe a personal attack is all you can muster up because you have no flow chart of humanity. You dont know our ancestors and so 'attack' rather than face your lack of knowledge. Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science. Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2590 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Not true..
Sorry David but once again you are simply lying and misrepresenting what RAZD and others have said. No one but you has even suggested that inbreeding is proof or anything or of making anything better or more viable.
Thats an absolute LIE, a despicable LIE, as over and over and over again Razz has been trying to con people on Humans and Dogs and Bones, that his inbreeding dog chart shows how variability can lead to evolutionary change. See that thread and apologise.. But then again, repeat your words to RAZZ and disagree with him and teach him that inbreeding is NOT a proof of evolution. You evolutionists are so inconsistent and unstable and erratic and evasive, it makes one doubt your sanity and of course doubt your stupid theory.Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science. Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Davidjay writes: But then again, repeat your words to RAZZ and disagree with him and teach him that inbreeding is NOT a proof of evolution. Of course, since RAZD does not say what you claim he says, there is no need to disagree with him. Only YOU have claimed that inbreeding is proof of evolution. Since it is so easy to check claims like these that you make; and since in all cases when checked it shows you are simply lying; is there any reason to think your claims about the God you try to market are not simply more of your lies and as worthless as all the cut & paste shit from your website?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2590 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Of course, since RAZD does not say what you claim he says, there is no need to disagree with him. Only YOU have claimed that inbreeding is proof of evolution. Since it is so easy to check claims like these that you make; and since in all cases when checked it shows you are simply lying; is there any reason to think your claims about the God you try to market are not simply more of your lies and as worthless as all the cut & paste shit from your website?
Not so, the evidence exactly states that Razz says over and over and over again that inbreeding is a sign that evolution could have might have, should have surely did make the jump and create a new species, and is proof of evolution...... Its written by him, multiptle multiple times, and is not a MIS REPRESENTATION..... he refuses to take down his doggie inbreeding chart, and now as expected you try and cover this up and deny it. And yet still you evolutionists are inconsistent as one of you says inbreeding is not a proof of evolution and the majority of you are silent as a graveyard, and others like you say, no one said that and youre a liar and misrepresenting us poor evolutionists who are being picked on (paraphrased for clarity sake) EvC Forum: The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans Evolutionists please refraim from mentioning your feces when posting on my threads, use respect rather than disrespect as your tools in debating rather than gross language and inconsistent principles and deceptions. Thanks Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given. Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science. Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 529 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
Firstly I don't represent evolution or religion ok.
Interesting reading the replies. Many of them just automatically dismiss the facts presented by the op and others are just outright rude and offensive. But out of all these one eyed evolutionists no one has been able to produce an example of fossils found to be ape/man. Not even one... Wake up evos. This is not science. This is philosophy. Anti religious philosophy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1666 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray Porkandcheese,
Firstly I don't represent evolution or religion ok. Sure ...
Interesting reading the replies. Many of them just automatically dismiss the facts presented by the op and others are just outright rude and offensive. and some are inane and don't address the op.
But out of all these one eyed evolutionists ... How rude and offensive.
... no one has been able to produce an example of fossils found to be ape/man. Not even one... Wrong. But then you probably don't know what a transitional fossil is. Ignorance can be cured.
Wake up evos. This is not science. This is philosophy. Anti religious philosophy and why are you so concerned, if you don't "represent" religion, ok? Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 529 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
Ok then oh wise one please explain what a transitional fossil is and some human examples.
Why am I so concerned. Cos I'm searching for answers. Bought up by catholics I rejected the bible when I was old enough and looked to science only to find the same stuff. Unfounded stories. Both religion and biology need to wake up and accept the fact that know one knows for sure. What is the term for that position anyway. I don't accept religion nor do I accept the biological theory. Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1666 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Ok then oh wise one please explain what a transitional fossil is ... To begin with the proper term is "intermediate" ... as in intermediate between ancestor and descendant populations. Evolution occurs in populations, not individuals as each individual is a product of mutation and selection in a changing ecology.
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. This is not theory, it is observed objective empirical fact, documented in hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies. This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Every generation is intermediate and every individual in that population is intermediate.
... and some human examples. Modern human, Australopithicus (lucy composite), and modern chimps. Do you see how Australopithicus is intermediate between human and chimp? Look at the hip bones in particular.
quote: A whole bunch of skulls showing intermediate stages in development over time. Chimp at one end, modern human at the other.
Why am I so concerned. Cos I'm searching for answers. Bought up by catholics I rejected the bible when I was old enough and looked to science only to find the same stuff. Unfounded stories. Then you haven't really looked at science to see how it works.
In science hypothesis are based on objective empirical evidence and then used to predict something new that tests the hypothesis, and a theory is a tested hypothesis. The theory's purpose is to explain all the evidence as well as can be explained, and the testing of a theory is never complete. They can be falsified but not proven, as each test only validates the theory while the next prediction result may invalidate it. They are not "stories" they are well researched and tested explanations that are the best explanations of the reality we can establish at this point.
Both religion and biology need to wake up and accept the fact that know one knows for sure. Only religion claims to. In science the results are tentative, however, the more tested they are the higher the confidence we have that they approach/approximate reality. Each theory built on the last one brings that approximation closer.
What is the term for that position anyway. I don't accept religion nor do I accept the biological theory. Agnostic (and science is agnostic)or confused or just ignorant of biological theory. A good place to start is Welcome to Evolution 101! by the Understanding Evolution team:
quote: You can go at your own speed. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
Porkncheese writes: What is the term for that position anyway. I don't accept religion nor do I accept the biological theory. There are few terms for it, the most polite probably being 'confused'. From the remarks you've made so far about biological theory you plainly don't actually know what it is, so it's not a matter of not accepting it, you need to understand it first. You appear to have absorbed a lot of religious hogwash about it. Stick around here and listen to what is said and you'll be in a position to accept it or not - at the moment you're denying something that isn't biology.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 529 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined:
|
Thanks RAZD for your reply. Your correct in saying I'm ignorant in biology and confused.
Accepting religion growing up I then started to hear and learn the opinion of others. By the age of 16 I had rejected religion and just went along with evolution, big bang, all that. I didn't give it much thought again until I was in my 30's when I started to hear and learn the opinions of others. And after watching, listening and reading arguments for and against I'm not at all convinced that the biological theory of evolution is 100% fact. Much of the so called supporting evidence is inconclusive or subject to various assumptions. This leaves me with a similar feeling I had about religion. The feeling of being lied to. But this is worse because while religion is about faith science is meant to be about facts. You see I'm in engineering and at university I studied physics where mathematics dictates everything. There is only one correct answer. Any other answer is incorrect. There are no estimates or assumptions. There is no ifs buts or maybes. Everything is observable and measurable. Biology, as I'm learning, is nothing like that. Like the earth is 6.5 to 6.6 billion. Why the 100 million discrepancy? Thats just unheard of in maths and physics. Not only is it acceptable but it is declared to be fact in Biology. Like your example of Australopiticus being a transitional or intermediate is very convincing. But many conclude that it is just a species of ape and that not enough bones were recovered to conclude it to be human. No hand or feet bones, only tiny fragments of skull and a few other bones. In engineering we cannot make any assumptions for the consequences could be catastrophically fatal to thousands. Nothing is released before being totally confirmed of its safety and functionality. Australopiticus is a guess isn't it? One opinion vs another. You show me a series of skulls claiming it to show evolution. You are effectively asking me now for the same thing religion asks... Faith. You are asking me to have faith in your word that these specimens are in fact links in the evolution of man. Can you see how that is not acceptable for myself? Why I must question everything and not just go along with it all. Iv heard many say that no transitional (intermediate or whatever you prefer to call them) fossils have ever been found. Archaeopteryx is apparently the only example of evolution, supposedly showing the transition from reptiles to birds. Only one example. Would you call that conclusive evidence? You made an interesting statement which I totally agree with"The theory's purpose is to explain all the evidence as well as can be explained, and the testing of a theory is never complete. They can be falsified but not proven, as each test only validates the theory while the next prediction result may invalidate it" So by your statement you must agree that the theory cannot be regarded as "Gospel". There may be some supporting evidence but our knowledge of the subject is just not enough to say with 100% certainty that every aspect of our theory is correct. Someone else said that the theory doesn't not even address the beginning of life. So if we cannot explain the beginning of life and our fossils don't really support evolution without an artists impression then why are we claiming it to be unquestionable fact and teaching it to our kids. I feel I'm going to be totally abused for this post but I challenge anyone to be logical, look at it like Isaac Newton and lay down some decent evidence. Part of your flow chart is "predict something" well what has been predicted? As for cells... One cell or one cell organism ok my bad. But in the end isn't it still essentially one cell that created everything? One cell that multiplied on its own? This frustrates me. There are a lot of things that strike me as being religious about the whole thing. Like how offensive people get, unable to have a normal conversation about it, unable to listen to reason or take another perspective on it often resorting to insults to exit the debate. Saying it is "Gospel" when they know that the theory has much speculation and conjecture, it already has many pieces of evidence against it and is subject to further new findings in future studies that could disprove it.. The exaggerations of everything like see how you presented all those skulls to me as if it were 100% fact. Or how you presented Lucy not with the few bones that were found but as a complete skeleton. This is very misleading and is the type of stuff I saw in religion. People modifying fossils, frauds and fakes to trick the average civilian. Why all that? And this automatic assumption that I'm a preacher really makes u guys seem unbelievably bad and untrustworthy. Everyone here has labelled me a preacher. But is religion a part of my argument... Not at all. I see anyone with any religious arguments gets discriminated against, shamed and outcast. Their are so many unanswered questions... Im not here to take any sides. Rather just to have people admit that their religion, science, doctrine or whatever you like to call it could have some details that are incorrect. That it could actually contain things that are not totally true and/or cannot be explained. Ok you can all begin your attack on me now...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
Firstly I don't represent evolution or religion ok. ... Wake up evos. This is not science. This is philosophy. Anti religious philosophy You appear to have fallen into a false dichotomy, an either-or mentality. You appear to think that there is conflict between science and religion and between evolution and creation (as is evidenced by your last sentence there). That false mentality is central to creationist rhetoric along with being a common misconception among non-creationists, mostly stemming from taking creationist false statements at face value (eg, "If evolution is true then the Bible is false and God does not exist." and a legion of similar statements). If you believe that there is conflict between evolution and creation, then please explain to us why you would think that. A new topic would be appropriate if an actual discussion were to emerge from this question, but I somehow doubt that you will respond. There is no inherent conflict between evolution and creation by supernatural means. The only conflict that can arise is if one's claims of creation include contrary-to-fact claims as they mere mortal fallible humans dare to dictate to God how He can and cannot have Created. Similarly, there is no inherent conflict between science and religion unless religion chooses to create conflict with statements about the real world that are contrary to fact. In both cases, it is religion that would create any conflict, not science. According to actual creationists, God created the natural universe (AKA "the physical universe", AKA "the real world") -- please note that my reference to "actual creationists" is appropriate since one of our most rabid creationists here, Faith, rejected that idea altogether for no reason that I can remember her having given. Science is the study of the physical universe, AKA "the real world", and how it works. When done correctly (as science always strives to do in order to avoid invalid results), science cannot contradict the Creation, regardless of how It actually got here (ie, regardless of which of countless Creator Gods had actually done the deed, if any). Science only deals with how the real world works and does not get involved with the supernatural, which it cannot deal with. Now, there is a theology far too often adopted by creationists (and which is fundamental to Intelligent Design) called "The God of the Gaps", which basically posits that God exists within the gaps of human knowledge. That this leads to viewing God as weak and hiding frightened in perpetual fear of Man's increasing knowledge should be obvious even to the most pious of observers. Its application among IDists and many creationists is to argue: "Oh look how complex this is! We in our ignorance cannot imagine how it could have evolved, therefore God!" Besides diminishing God even further with each new discovery by humans, it also establishes a metric by which to disprove God: any naturalistic explanation for something disproves God. That is utterly false, yet that is the implicit creationist and IDist position. Thus "creation science" accomplishes what no anti-God atheist ever could, disproving the existence of God. The irony it burns! By the same token, however life appeared, once it came into existence it started evolving. Stated very basically, evolution is the cumulative results and effects of life doing what life naturally does, of populations of organisms surviving and reproducing and surviving and reproducing. That would have happened regardless of how life had gotten there in the first place. Therefore, evolution does not contradict creation ... unless "creation" is arbitrarily redefined to contradict the real world, such as YEC does. Even abiogenesis does not inherently contradict creation. In opposition to "The God of the Gaps" stands God as "The Sovereign over Nature". Instead of hiding impotent terrified in the shadows of the gaps, the Sovereign over Nature is omnipotent and able to use all the forces and processes of Nature, which It had created in the first place. For example, from Genesis 1 of the King James Version:
quote:1) God is not being described as having created all that life directly, but rather had used the earth and the waters as intermediate agents which then performed all that work. 2) For those apologists who want to try to match up actual earth history with Genesis, Genesis has land life appearing two full days before sea life, completely opposite of what we actually know. Sorry, but that's how the matzah crumbles. So then, did the Creator magically poof life into existence (again, please note that our most rabid creationist here, Faith, strongly opposes any mention of God having done anything magically, though that context is mainly geological) or did the Creator use natural processes to bring life into existence? What difference would it make? Well, for actual creationists it would make no difference. For YECs who want to dictate to God how He did and could not have created (never a good idea!), God using the natural processes He had Himself created would end up disproving God. What idiocy!
Many of them just automatically dismiss the facts presented by the op and others are just outright rude and offensive. You don't know the players yet. Mike the Wiz is basically a YEC troll who spends most of his time in creationist forums enraptured in their massive circle jerk in the sky and where no one can dare ever question any of their unsupported and false claims. On occasion, he will return here to try to stir up trouble with his outrageously false posts. Such as the OP (Message 1), which does nothing more than to repost a long refuted claim. As I responded in Message 8:
DWise1 writes: This nonsense again? I first read it in 1970 in the original version of Chick Pubs' "Big Daddy?". That was 46 years ago, nearly half a century! And I'm sure that it was being kicked around for decades before that. And despite it being refuted time after time the same old creationist lies just keep coming back. A few decades ago, a local creationist created his own poor man's cheap knock-off of the Chick Pubs' "Big Daddy?" (BTW, now all you can find is an inferior second edition purportedly written by that convicted fraud, Kent Hovind, whereas I had read the original back circa 1970, but unfortunately never kept a copy, a lament sung by so many comic book readers). The original included that parody of Time's March of Human Evolution (my name just now made up), of which Mike the Wiz' list is a copy and which my local creationist reproduced in his own Chick Pub knock-off. Here is my response to that creationist (G.S. is the high school teacher with a PhD, Dr. Gee I'm Smart, while Stu is the "true Christian student -- gee, isn't this guy oh so subtle?):
quote: It was on this forum that I encountered an acronym: PRATT -- "Point Refuted A Thousand Times".
But out of all these one eyed evolutionists ... Are you calling us all penises? Is he calling us all penises? Is he having a laugh?
Robin Williams writes: (in Death to Smoochy, the scene of a live children's TV show he tried to sabotage with a penis cookie) It's Willie, the One-Eyed Wonder Weasel! Also, on Drew Carey's comedy improve show (whose name I forget), they were supposed to portray a penis and one commedienne (that's the feminine form in case you are so grammatically deprived) made sure to maintain that one-eyed stare. So fuck you too, you hypocritical "true Christian" asshole!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2341 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.9 |
Biology, as I'm learning, is nothing like that. Like the earth is 6.5 to 6.6 billion. Why the 100 million discrepancy? Thats just unheard of in maths and physics. Not only is it acceptable but it is declared to be fact in Biology.
That is not biology that is geology. And that determination is based on math and physics. There is error in every calculation, nothing can be measured perfectly you'll learn this as you go along in engineering.It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 429 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Ah, the ol' "bog-standard creationist fails at mimicking neutrality" ploy. Yah, you'll get piled
Australopitacus was just an ape. Pongo pygmaeus is just an ape. Homo sapiens is just an ape.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 429 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Whose Line is it Anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Porkncheese writes: Ok you can all begin your attack on me now... It sounds as though this is what you want to happen. Why would we? It seems to me that you're just confused; you've got a very mixed up idea of what evolution is and you're frustrated that biology isn't mathematics. Well if you think biology isn't exact, don't ever look into the social sciences. You'll only get attacked if you turn out to be a creationist trying it on or if we spend a lot of time trying to explain things, providing you with evidence and you continue to mis-represent it. It happens a lot here. In biology you're not looking a V=I*R, you're looking at accumulating vast quantities of data and building connections and correlations, creating hypotheses and testing them against real observations. With the theory of evolution - ToE - we have 150 years of accumulated facts and thought which has now got the the stage were it's almost impossible to be wrong. Don't dismiss this out of hand, it's clear that you barely know the first thing about it and what you think you know is wrong. If you really are a scientist, you need to approach this with a scientific mind - at the moment you don't sound like one. Prove us wrong.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024