By the way, I need to give credit to James Merritt for compiling much of the previous “evidence.”
Elvis who?
Tom:
“The Missing Link?” This is very interesting. It seems to be a substantial break in the ‘chain of evidence’, as such should raise serious question in an rational examiner’s mind. But, alas, I already hear the response ringing in my ears. "Well, we just haven’t found that link yet. We know it’s out there, but so much time has passed, etc., et yadada,
BigDaddyD:
Not a strong logical statement. Rather (and I mean no offense, just playing by the rules) an ‘aw shucks’ kind of cop-out. I mean, either the preponderance of evidence to conclusively support evolution is there, or it isn’t. Again, I refer to the ‘Missing Link’ which should raise serious questions in any truly impartial inquirer’s mind. I can’t help but think that the rabid ‘anti-creationists’ (who claim to bring a ‘rational mind’ to the table) are driven by an anti-theistic philosophy, and that the creation vs. evolution debate is another forum/vehicle by which they may vent their prejudices. Also, creationist could use the same reasoning you employed in that statement, ie; the truth will be known in the fullness of time.
BigDaddyD, you have referred to yourself as a Christian, so I will ask you:
How do you reconcile your faith with evolutionist theory, ie; everything spontaneously created itself out of nothing until the apes arrived, and we are the progeny thereof?
David:
The alleged fact that our DNA more closely resembles that of the apes that that of any other creature on this earth is hardly conclusive and does not establish an undeniable link.
How far removed is are ‘scientific hypotheses and theories’ from beliefs drawn from an individuals personal experiences? How far do scientific suppositions go before they’re no longer ‘scientific’?
Again, only an assertion
Ben: Again, establishing a similarity between apes and humans does not establish a link. By your logic any two species who most closely resemble each other makes for prima facie evidence of a genetic relationship. This is a leap of faith.
THAT of course, is the big question.
Singer, Deity, savior, alien from space, these are but a few of the many faces of Elvis for Those Who Know.
CalifBoomer said:
What “missing link”? Do you even know what you’re talking about, or are you just repeating standard creationist rhetoric?
And it is. Happy?
And again I refer to your ability to quote creationist rhetoric, but not to actually add anything substantial to the discussion.
Tell it to RTFirefly. Tell it to Polycarp (when he gets back). Tell it to Tomndebb. Tell it to the Pope. Etc. All of these folks are theists who also accept evolution. But I guess you’d rather not hear about that, eh?
“Alleged fact”? Let me guess, it’s not true, just part of an evolutionist conspiracy? Get a grip, man! Is it an “undeniable link”? Obviously not, since there are people like you who will deny it. But it is damned good evidence? Hell yes! Besides, you didn’t actually answer my question (as usual). Is it a coincidence or is your god a big prankster?
I had said:“Evolution is science. Creationism is religion.” You replied:
Yes, an assertion that is absolutely true and backed up by mountains of evidence, as has been explained a couple hundred times on this board before. But you’d rather ignore all the available evidence, I see.
Oh, and Boomer, what “Missing Link”?
Early H. habilis are almost indistinguishable from the Australopithicines in the same era and geographic location. There are skulls that force the investigators to make a judgement call as to whether they belong to H. Habilis or H. erectus. Recently, H. ergaster has been proposed as a name for those H. erectus skulls which show resemblences to the Neandertalers, and H. heidelbergenis (check my spelling, I am writing from memory) is also called archaic H. sapiens despite its obvious erectus affinities.
Human evolution, at least from the point of the Australopithicine bipedial chimps, is a beautiful example of the gradual changes in a lineage. What section do you feel has a gap large enough to qualify as a “Missing Link”?
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.”
David:
[quote]
What “missing link”? Do you even know what you’re talking about, or are you just
repeating standard creationist rhetoric?
[quote]
I was responding to one of your teams (BigDaddyD) statements. I did not make this up. When do not have an answer, attack your questioner??
No, you, David, have made statements acknowledging gaps in the evidence.
Again, David, just a spurious attack on anyone who doesn’t simply agree with you. I’m losing any respect I may have had for your purported rational thought.
Here you seem to be saying “I don’t have a substantive answer, but because enough people say it’s true, it must be true”. You have already condemned this kind of logic, yet you employ it when it suits you. Hardly rational or consistent.
I most assuredly did answer your question. Learn to read, man. I said:
In other words, *just because it is the closest thing does not mean it is the samething.
However, you did not answer my question, so {sigh} I will pose it once again:
How far removed is are ‘scientific hypotheses and theories’ from beliefs drawn from an
individuals personal experiences? How far do scientific suppositions go before they’re
no longer ‘scientific’?
::
Wow, you guys were busy last night while I was asleep!
BAD NEWS: On Saturday, the Los Angeles Daily News asked the question, “Do you think creationism should be taught along with evolution in public schools?” People were to answer by telephone. On Sunday they published the results:
534 Responses
68% - Yes
32% - No
It was not a scientific poll. There was nothing to prevent someone from voting more than once. And this poll is not available online, so you’ll have to take my word for it.
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
Ya know, Boomer, you’re starting to piss me off. I’m tired of creationist games. You avoid the question, and then when this is pointed out, claim you didn’t.
What “missing link” are you talking about? You say somebody else brought it up; good, then it should be easy for you to explain.
Why do you claim anti-creationists are just anti-theist and then ignore me when I point out a number of theists who accept evolution?
Why is our DNA so similar to that of apes?
Do you accept that, in fact, our DNA is so similar to that of apes?
And those are just the ones from the last message! I’d hate to have to go back and search for all the previous ones you’ve been avoiding.
As far as your remark about scientific theories and beliefs, it’s really a matter of definition. Scientific theories are ideas that have scientific evidence to back them up. We use the scientific method to analyze the data and see how well it stacks up against the idea. Personal experiences are just that – personal. Some may be valid data in an overall scientific experiment, depending on what the experiment is looking for, but I can hardly see how that applies to creationism and/or evolution.
Ignorance is Bliss.
Reality is Better.
Woops! I made an error (probably because I’m descended from an ape). I attributed a quote to BigDaddyD that properly belongs to tomndebb. That quote is:
From whence I derive the “Missing Link” question.
Thank you.
BTW, Gaudere- Don’t really understand your diatribe 
, but I hope you get your meds levelled out.
::
I remember reading that Apes and humans shared more than 99% of their DNA. Among humans there is about a .2% variance.
An impartial observer from another planet (let’s propose a fungi from Yuggoth) might easily make the mistake that Apes were simply a different race of human.
I would say that a .8% variance between an mannish ape and an apish man is strongly suggestive of common ancestry.
The alternative is a sloppy GOD who plagiarizes his own work, or worse yet the work of evolution if you subscribe to the “animals evolve but Man was created” school. I personally choose not to endorse the “God is a hack” theory.
Grab Occam’s rusty butter knife and take a wack.
You know, David, I’m just playing the game by the rules you established here. Logic, rational thought, evidence. If that ‘pisses you off’, and you would rather go on the attack than engage anyone who disagrees with you, fine. Continue living in self absorbed sanctimonious godless meaningless little world.
Okay, that explains it. Reading comprehension problems.
Boomer, as much as I hesitate to speak for Tom~, the scenario he presented about the lineage dying out and being “magically” replaced by modern humans was an attempt to define what YOU believe. As you have stated, you do not believe that humans are the result of the selective forces that produced the rest of the life now on this Earth. The only way to reconcile your “idea” with the record of earlier primates is to have a magical extinction of all the pre-“human” hominids and replacement with “real” humans.
I can assure you that Tom~ does not feel this is a likely scenario nor a valid explanation for the observations.
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.”
Oh, sorry. I hadn’t realized this has become a “DavidB is picking on me” thread. Please ignore anything anyone might have said that may be a real contribution to the discussion.
If anyone feels like discussing science later, let me know.
scylla:
There appears to be a flaw in the logic here, as it is developed not only by an alleged descendent of an ape, but presumably an intermediate step to a more intellgent being.
Why should we accept the notion that our evolutionary process has yet arrived at a point where it can correctly determine its own origins?
::
Well dude, my evolutionary inferiority has little to do with the merits of my arguments.
I can use the same argument (I can’t credit it as logic) to say that since the Bible says we are all sinners and imperfect (you too) none of your arguments mean anything.
The truth is that it doesn’t matter if the idea came from the Tooth Fairy. The truth stands on its own merits.
If I use a screwdriver to pound in a nail does that mean the nail didn’t get pounded?
I mean I, strongly believe in God, but my belief has nothing to do with logic. It’s seperate. I see no conflict. When I’m arrogant I might even say that my faith goes beyond logic.
This crap you’re pulling is just denial.
I hate to tell you this, but you’re making belief in God look just as bad as Pashley made straight guys look. (no offense Pash)
I admit that I don’t know some of what you have posted, but I’ll attempt to explain most of your “bad science.”
Anything I leave out I don’t understand or have no explaination or just have no comment.
No, most influenced each other. Do you see American indian religion to have significant similarities with christianity?
Only a fraction of which can be observed. How far do you think like will travel before losing some coherency due to dispersal of gases? We can’t see all the way across the universe, nor can be see into blackholes, super dense neutron stars, whats inside that nebula, etc etc.
Nothing is wrong with the God hypothesis, but So what if we can’t explain the big bang yet. Can you explain God?
Theres an amusing argument, and a new one on me =). Anyways, thats just an interpretation.
Science has changed much in a 100(well, actually try that maggot thing being about 400 years or so) You’re right, but would you call that Science? They didn’t use the scientific method back then. It was basically, I see something, I make up an explaination. That’s not science. That’s just guessing.
Ok, that was a cheap shot. Um, Christain doctrine stable? You’ve got to be kidding me. We have proven wrong plenty of the stories in the bible, not to mention many retractions by the catholic church(ack hem… they did accept evolution.)
Science changes because it proves itself wrong.
If it’s an electical current where does it discharge to?
-
1^200 = 1 maybe you mean 10^200.
-
Who says an entire cell had to come into existance all at once? Go back and read my ribozyme theory post on the first page of this debate.
-
what the hell does the number of atoms have to do with anything?
What about underground lakes? underground rivers? Old faithful? Not to mention Unrefined oil is EXTREMLY thick compared to water.
BULL SHIT. H2O, 'nuff said.
3 catagories.
No mutation: normal, they have an equal chance of living or dying off.
Bad mutation: they will probably die off before reproduction meaning that mutation is gone.
Good mutation: They will more then likely reproduce and pass on this good mutation.
Rinse, later repeat til end of time.
New genes can be created via mutation,(uh, I forgot the technical term, but during meoisis of gamantes[sperm and eggs] parts of chromosomes can break off and reattach somewhere else.) the lysogenic cycle of Virii(virii of this nature INSERT their DNA into your own).
HUH?! Elaborate please.
About 100 tons of space dust falls onto earth per day(or was it year? I forgot)
Do you know what the outside of a comet is made out of? ICE! A comet could pick up stray matter all over the place. Besides, who is to say that comet was formed by the big bang?
Packed by weight, washed off by rain etc etc.
uh, what’s That?
I’d suppose you’d say the photosynthetic cynanobacteria explosion was also an act of God too eh?
Anyway, the human population boom was caused by our superiorty to the animals–namely intelligence.
If you’re talking about the concept of right and left polarized atoms then No. The scientific explaination would be that the first cells could only metabolize one sort of atom(as it is today) and thus only synthesize that right handed atom. This led to a build up of RIGHT handed atoms and molecules.
No.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“1” fac
I must apologize for Brother D’s abhorrent behavior. After rudely asking for the evidence for Creation “Science” several times, he actually had the gall to create a topic to give them all the room they need to present the evidence, the cad! And instead of having the good grace to accept the excuses the Creationists so kindly proffered, he actually asked them to prove their points. I think that we have tolerated enough of this nastiness. Let’s all go over to the LBMB, where they understand that facts have no place in science! 
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.
Against stupidity the very gods / Themselves contend in vain.
scylla:
I see. When your ‘rational logic’ is exposed as vacuous pseudo-intellectualism, you have tantrums.
Perhaps you are correct. We may well be the progeny of apes.
::