RE: Evolution/Creation debate

RE: Evolution/Creation debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/9/2014 6:36:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You shouldn't believe scam artists. http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/foerster-pye-and-ketchum-collaborate-paracas-elongated-skull-exposed-its/ Science has its fundamentalist assholes just like religion, and they are every bit as nasty and dishonest. As a case in point, your link is nothing but an extended ad hominem. Head binding does not change cranial capacity. These people had much larger brains than Sapiens, and their skulls lack the characteristic sagittal suture. They clearly do not belong to any currently known member of the genus Homo. K.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/9/2014 7:19:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You shouldn't believe scam artists. http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/foerster-pye-and-ketchum-collaborate-paracas-elongated-skull-exposed-its/ Science has its fundamentalist assholes just like religion, and they are every bit as nasty and dishonest. As a case in point, your link is nothing but an extended ad hominem. Head binding does not change cranial capacity. These people had much larger brains than Sapiens, and their skulls lack the characteristic sagittal suture. They clearly do not belong to any currently known member of the genus Homo. Bullshit. These are H sapiens skulls. All the extraordinary claims are not documented. And where would these previously undocumented South American hominids have come from then? A tiny other wise morphological fully modern population of Homo on the west coast of South America with unique characters, and supposedly unique completely alien DNA. Is that really your argument?

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/9/2014 7:24:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen These are H sapiens skulls. Thump! quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Is that really your argument? What I say is what appears on your screen next to my name. If it isn't there, then I didn't say it. See how that works? Everything else is your imagination. Try to keep the two separate. K.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/9/2014 8:11:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen These are H sapiens skulls. Thump! quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Is that really your argument? What I say is what appears on your screen next to my name. If it isn't there, then I didn't say it. See how that works? Everything else is your imagination. Try to keep the two separate. So you're basing the claims of extraordinary anatomy on what?

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/9/2014 9:39:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Paladinagain can anyone give an actual example of evolution? You know, an actual incedent where something gave birth to something else? I wonder why that is? You, unless you're a clone of your parent, are an actual example of evolution. [sm=rofl.gif]

BitYakin -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/9/2014 10:46:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Paladinagain can anyone give an actual example of evolution? You know, an actual incedent where something gave birth to something else? I wonder why that is? You, unless you're a clone of your parent, are an actual example of evolution. ummm nooo I think that's GENETICS

BitYakin -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/9/2014 10:52:55 PM)
to no one in particular, why is it impossible for creationism and evolution to not possibly BOTH be part of the equation... if I mixed certain chemicals CREATED life, and it EVOLVED into something, that would make BOTH valid! why is it IMPOSSIBLE for there to have been a CREATION EVENT, that then later EVOLVED? personally I think we are an EXPERIMENT of some superior life form, that they got bored with and left to its own devices, you therefor have INTELLIGENT DESIGN that was left to EVOLVE

crazyml -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/9/2014 11:07:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Paladinagain can anyone give an actual example of evolution? You know, an actual incedent where something gave birth to something else? I wonder why that is? You, unless you're a clone of your parent, are an actual example of evolution. ummm nooo I think that's GENETICS ummmm I think there's a relationship between Genetics and evolution.

crazyml -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/9/2014 11:13:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin to no one in particular, why is it impossible for creationism and evolution to not possibly BOTH be part of the equation... if I mixed certain chemicals CREATED life, and it EVOLVED into something, that would make BOTH valid! why is it IMPOSSIBLE for there to have been a CREATION EVENT, that then later EVOLVED? personally I think we are an EXPERIMENT of some superior life form, that they got bored with and left to its own devices, you therefor have INTELLIGENT DESIGN that was left to EVOLVE Indeed, and that is precisely what the religions with the really decent marketing depts will argue. Alas, it does rather seem that there's a good deal more evidence for evolution than there is for any kind of intelligent design. But, don't let me argue with your <finger quotes>faith</finger quotes>

epiphiny43 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/9/2014 11:19:52 PM)
Once the absolute irrepeatability of Genetics is grasped, Evolution is not just implied but mandatory. Gene pools can be 'stable' for quite awhile. They can Never be static. Simple carbon radioactivity mandates eventual coding changes.

EdBowie -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 12:24:41 AM)
Why limit it to one imaginary creation event? Why not accept the far more likely premise that Ba'al simply lactated the entire universe using magic, so that it appears to humans in it's current form, million year old fossils, laws of physics, fake Abrahamic deities, plagiarized scriptures and all? quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin to no one in particular, why is it impossible for creationism and evolution to not possibly BOTH be part of the equation... if I mixed certain chemicals CREATED life, and it EVOLVED into something, that would make BOTH valid! why is it IMPOSSIBLE for there to have been a CREATION EVENT, that then later EVOLVED? personally I think we are an EXPERIMENT of some superior life form, that they got bored with and left to its own devices, you therefor have INTELLIGENT DESIGN that was left to EVOLVE

PeonForHer -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 3:49:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel You, unless you're a clone of your parent, are an actual example of evolution. ummm nooo I think that's GENETICS Brilliant. [:D]

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 4:20:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Why limit it to one imaginary creation event? Why not accept the far more likely premise that Ba'al simply lactated the entire universe using magic, so that it appears to humans in it's current form, million year old fossils, laws of physics, fake Abrahamic deities, plagiarized scriptures and all? quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin to no one in particular, why is it impossible for creationism and evolution to not possibly BOTH be part of the equation... if I mixed certain chemicals CREATED life, and it EVOLVED into something, that would make BOTH valid! why is it IMPOSSIBLE for there to have been a CREATION EVENT, that then later EVOLVED? personally I think we are an EXPERIMENT of some superior life form, that they got bored with and left to its own devices, you therefor have INTELLIGENT DESIGN that was left to EVOLVE Philosophically, God could have created the universe last night while we were sleeping and we wouldn't know the difference but that is not what this discussion is about. ;-)

GotSteel -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 4:42:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Why not accept the far more likely premise that Ba'al simply lactated the entire universe using magic... I heard that doG sneezed.

vincentML -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 7:23:29 AM)
quote: Science has its fundamentalist assholes just like religion, and they are every bit as nasty and dishonest. An often repeated false equivalency. Just who are these science fundamentalists? And how do they maintain their fundamentalist creed when the central spark of science is to experiment and expose error? And just what is that fundamentalist creed anyway? Well, truth be told, it does not exist. The charge of scientism is a bogus one, brought by patent medicine purveyors, literalist theists, and new-age woo presenters who are trying to sell their alternative goods. It is an old and tread bare tactic, this attempt to level the playing field by demeaning science.

vincentML -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 8:07:02 AM)
quote: Polyploidy is a case, possiby the only case, where speciation occurs in one generation. Multiplying the number of chromosomes makes the new specie's gene pool incompatible with old population's. I asked you for an example of evolution/speciation occurring now. You gave me the polyploidy primrose discovered by DeVries in 1886. Granted that polyploidy is common among plants and they can thrive because they self-pollinate and the difference in chromosome numbers makes them incompatible for sexual reproduction. I grant you it is a new species. But you really have to stretch definitions to call polyploidy mutation a form of natural selection. Genetic drift is an obvious fact. As I understand you, genetic drift over time will cause the emergence of a new species. Or did cause the emergence of a new species. There is no bright line, you say. My question is then how do you know when a new species has demarked from its ancestor? Humans share almost 99% of chimpanzee genes. Evidence they shared a common ancestor. But how are they biologically different species? Intuitively we know. But by what definition or marker of the term 'species?' That is what I am trying to nail down here. I hope my question is clear.

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 9:43:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Science has its fundamentalist assholes just like religion, and they are every bit as nasty and dishonest. An often repeated false equivalency. Just who are these science fundamentalists? And how do they maintain their fundamentalist creed when the central spark of science is to experiment and expose error? And just what is that fundamentalist creed anyway? Well, truth be told, it does not exist. The charge of scientism is a bogus one, brought by patent medicine purveyors, literalist theists, and new-age woo presenters who are trying to sell their alternative goods. It is an old and tread bare tactic, this attempt to level the playing field by demeaning science. Claiming it's a false equivalency on the basis of a straw man ("the fundamentalist creed") which you dismiss with a flourish ("it does not exist") is pretty thin stuff. Nobody raised a charge of scientism, either, and even if they had you've offered nothing of substance to show that it wouldn't be valid. Ironically, however, it is a characteristic of fundamentalists that they will resort to virtually any kind of legerdemain or ad hominem when they feel exposed. K.

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 9:49:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you're basing the claims of extraordinary anatomy on what? Is this your way of admitting that you had no basis for your bald claim that they're Homo Sapiens? [:D] K.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 10:40:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR I tried watching but lacked the patience for the 13-minute countdown. I doubt it would have been worth it even if you had had the patience. Evolution/Creation debates seem invariably to descend into one side proclaiming theology as fact and the other side proclaiming theory as fact. In short, a pissing contest between priests. Frankly, the notion that all life evolved from a single common ancestor has always struck me as likely to be no less a made up story than Genesis. If life arose once, why not more than once, in different forms in different niches? I could see all plants having a common ancestor, for example, but while natural selection works fine to explain speciation it seems increasingly inadequate when called upon to account for the phyla and kingdoms. Superficially, these arguments appear to center on a literal interpretation of Genesis, i.e., a God who is "outside" nature "creating" the world and its creatures. But in most of the debates, evolution is just being used as a stalking horse for abiogenesis, i.e., "spontaneous generation" dressed up in a new clown suit, just like Creationism changed costumes to become "Intelligent Design." Which brings us back to the pissing contest between priests. Meanwhile, of course, it's possible to view the universe as a manifestation of Deity, in which case there's no conflict between evolution and believing in God as the source of all life. But then, of course, the clergy couldn't have any fun. K. Very interesting. ;-)

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 11:00:04 AM)
Since there have basically been no Creationists defending Creationism it has been interesting to watch "Evolutionists" playing "whack-a-mole" with each other in this thread. If you can't even agree with each other on what the "fact" of Evolution involves, how to do expect those "ignorant Bible thumpers" to understand, let a lone believe the "fact" of Evolution. Oh, by the way, perhaps one of you could explain for me how honey bees "evolved". ;-)

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625