Early Man

[gyrene81]

Nothing like debating creation/evolution/religion in a cartoon game forum  


Waiting for Bustr to publish his thesis here.

lol, as long as it is kept civil and at least somewhat objective. there is no reason for any part of this discussion to escalate to the normal series of personal attacks...with 1 or 2 notable exceptions.

[Bear76]

lol, as long as it is kept civil and at least somewhat objective. there is no reason for any part of this discussion to escalate to the normal series of personal attacks...with 1 or 2 notable exceptions.

I applaud your optimism. But.....

[gyrene81]

ooh i missed this one in the junk...

You obviously haven't been reading this thread, as almost everything you've said has already been posited, and debunked.

1. Please show me ONE actual scientific theory that has been completely thrown out in the past 200 years, rather than refined to accommodate new data/evidence.

phlogiston (sp?) theory...

2. We ARE apes...and as I (and others) have already stated: We did not evolve from modern apes/monkeys/chimps/etc.  We evolved ALONGSIDE them. They branched off one way, we went another.

we have been classified as primates due to some physical similarities with higher level apes.

3. Please revisit my post where I show just a small sampling of the transitional fossils/missing links you claim don't exist - even though you're essentially starting to bring in a version of Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox: I'll show you a link (B) between A & C - you immediately say, "yeah, but now there's gaps between A & B and between B & C!"  Again, as I already stated: Each generation is almost indistinguishably different from its predecessor - thousands of generations later, however, you face a VERY different organism than what you started with - even though each successive generation appears to be almost the same as the last.

the problem with those fossils and the theories based off them, is that much of the theory rests on the faith that a single fossilized tooth or bone fragment from a single specimen would actually show the proper genetic code needed to fit the chain if it were possible extract the genetic material needed.

4. Faith is belief without evidence.  I don't need faith, because my beliefs follow the evidence available.

that is actually amazing just looking at the faith you have in less evidence than what has been proven to be fact from a book full of fairy tales.

[Motherland]

phlogiston (sp?) theory...

Disproved more than 200 years ago by a comfortable margin
A better example would've been the aether that would've been a physical thing all around us that light waves propagate through, that was considered one of the possible explanations of light up until the end of the 19th century, but that wasn't something that was very widely accepted or had any feeling of 'fact' to it at any point in the past 200 years

the problem with those fossils and the theories based off them, is that much of the theory rests on the faith that a single fossilized tooth or bone fragment from a single specimen would actually show the proper genetic code needed to fit the chain if it were possible extract the genetic material needed.

you don't understand how scientific method works

[SlidingHorn]

Disproved more than 200 years ago by a comfortable margin
A better example would've been the aether that would've been a physical thing all around us that light waves propagate through, that was considered one of the possible explanations of light up until the end of the 19th century, but that wasn't something that was very widely accepted or had any feeling of 'fact' to it at any point in the past 200 years
you don't understand how scientific method works

I don't even have to respond...I think you and GScholz have it covered.

*Kicks feet up*

 

[gyrene81]

you don't understand how scientific method works

i know it very well and in the case of human evolution it isn't being properly applied...

I don't even have to respond...I think you and GScholz have it covered.

*Kicks feet up*

 

not sure why, you haven't proven anything...    there is more evidence of global ancient alien interaction with humans than there is for the existence of some of the humanoids you think prove humans evolved from apes. there has yet to be even a theory as to what triggered the genetic differences and no one can explain how limited populations with limited gene pools grew to the extent needed to create the early civilizations.

[Brooke]

(Image removed from quote.)

  

[Zoney]

Gyrene never bathes and does not use toilet paper.

[Motherland]

i know it very well and in the case of human evolution it isn't being properly applied...

When Mendeleev created the periodic table in the mid-19th century, there were many holes in it that could not be explained at the time (there of course were still many undiscovered elements). Of course, this wasn't based on any kind of the sub atomic theory we now know is responsible for the properties of the elements, which wasn't discovered until the first half of the 20th century.
So, Mendeleev did not say 'oh there will be an element with this many protons between this element and this element so that the table can be complete'. He saw that there were repeating series of properties that were periodic among the elements, and where he saw holes, he said 'there must be this element to complement these two elements so that the table can be complete'. When elements such as Germanium were discovered later on, with properties that Mendeleev predicted to fill his holes, the Periodic Table became canon, since the idea is that with the scientific method you can form a hypothesis and predict later results, and he did. Sub-atomic theory corroborating his theory didn't matter- people didn't know about the underlying things that caused the periodic behavior of the elements until way after the Periodic Table had become the law of the land.

Similarly, we didn't understand DNA until 100 years after the origin of species.  We predicted that creatures would exist based on our understanding of the way that genetics, heredity and in the larger picture evolution worked, and we found creatures that fulfilled the properties we predicted, and the prediction-affirmed prediction (and more importantly, consistently confirmed predictions) affirmed the theory. DNA isn't necessary to prove that the gaps are filled in in our evolutionary chain just as subatomic theory wasn't necessary to prove that the gaps in Mendeleev's table were filled in.

[wpeters]

You obviously haven't been reading this thread, as almost everything you've said has already been posited, and debunked.

2. We ARE apes...and as I (and others) have already stated: We did not evolve from modern apes/monkeys/chimps/etc.  We evolved ALONGSIDE them. They branched off one way, we went another.

You are missing my point..  Where did we split off and what did we come from before we split...  Evolution states that we come from simple organism that happened in a harmful environment at the right time to reproduce its offspring.   Not did it stop there but continued to grow and eventually split off to form all living things...


It is easier to believe that we were created from the dust of the earth and woman from the rib of man by a creator.

The best proof of that is to hold your new born baby..  

None of look at are newborn son or daughter and say wow look at what random chance has gave.

If your theory was true we would actually have people being born with wings.  Three eyes , too many feet, or numerous different changes.  Some times extra limbs have happened. Usually as a result to radiation.   It is not a result of evolution.

That baby is born through love... One of the best proof of creation.

Evolution states that it is all about survival of the fittest.  If that were true people would not fall in love with each other.  We would run around and try to reproduce with the fittest. It would be slam bang thank you Ma'm and that would be the end of that. Your children would be born raised by the mother who would only look after the the fittest. She would let the rest die. No remorse. Your offspring would grow up to do the same.


Love on the other hand, leads people together. They become friends.  In due coarse, they decide to have children. These children are raised with values. They are taught manner and social conduct. In the end they grow up and start a relationship of their own..  This is all done through love not primordial instincts.

We want love.  Evolution doesn't.

It takes more faith to believe that we came from random  chance vs being created.

LtCondor

[Motherland]

You are missing my point..  Where did we split off and what did we come from before we split...  Evolution states that we come from simple organism that happened in a harmful environment at the right time to reproduce its offspring.   Not did it stop there but continued to grow and eventually split off to form all living things...


If your theory was true we would actually have people being born with wings.  Three eyes , too many feet, or numerous different changes.  Some times extra limbs have happened. Usually as a result to radiation.   It is not a result of evolution.

None of this is true. They are all lies someone told to you so that you would reject things that are very reasonable and easy to consolidate in your mind. Does that help?

That baby is born through love... One of the best proof of creation.

For sure you don't think that all babies are born from love? All of the products of rape and accidental pregnancy, every child that was born from the economic exchanges of prostitutes... I don't think all of them were born from love?

It is easier to believe that we were created from the dust of the earth and woman from the rib of man by a creator.

It takes more faith to believe that we came from random  chance vs being created.

So? It's easier to vegetate all day too, instead of going out and accomplishing things and contributing to society. Does that make it correct or fulfilling?
The easier of two things is very often or even generally the less desirable one

[gyrene81]

Gyrene never bathes and does not use toilet paper.

  you're giving up my secrets old man... 

[wpeters]

The majority are. That is what counts. 

If you went by evolution stander-eds
 that is how everything would work

[Motherland]

The majority are. That is what counts. 

If you went by evolution stander-eds
 that is how everything would work

If a process has 70% product 1 and 30% product 2 you don't just say that the result is product 1, and you don't base your explanation of the process just off of the process that produces product 1. If you want to talk about science, that's not how it works. It's methodical
Actually, ignoring the minor products is exactly how you end up getting half credit on organic chemistry II exam problems, speaking of which..

A child is made when a sperm fertilizes an egg and the fetus manages to reach a point where it's capable of living asymbiotically. Sometimes the resulting child is loved and sometimes not, but the chemical processes that lead to its creation march on regardless.

[Tank-Ace]

Motherland, forget it, he's too far indoctrinated to break him loose. He's obviously made religion his center, and in such a manner that he has to reject scientific proof, else his view of the nature of existence would collapse.