Assuming they can actually be answered, how many questions will you require answered before you’re satisfied, Interest? The reason I ask is that there just doesn’t seem to be a limit for many creationists; they’ll come up with one Unsolvable Problem That Is The FInal Nail In The Coffin Of Evolution, then when that has been explained/refuted, they just go and pick another one, and another and so on, instead of stopping and saying “hey… what the heck am I trying to achieve here?”
[QUOTE=Interest]
Is it to difficult to determine so we have to accept that it did without the physical evidence?
[/QUOTE]
Before we go too far, there is an overwhelming amount of physical evidence. Even ignoring the fossil record, DNA would be enough evidence to demonstrate common descent. You are operating under the false impression about evidence for evolution.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
The comments about Neanderthal men mae me think of something. I very recently read a recent issue of some magazine that was entirely devoted to Neanderthals. Amongst the articles one was about how Neanderthals were perceived after their discovery, during the second half of the 19th century. Very interesting, actually, because it dispelled a number of mistaken assumptions about what the scientific community thought by then, and amongst other things, the idea that evolutionists of the time used it as an evidence, and anti-evolutionists dismissed it. According to the article at least, it’s patently untrue.
[/QUOTE]
Those untruths lasted much longer than that, even among scientists. It wasn’t until well into the 20th century that a more informed view of Neanderthals became common. Part of the problem was that the original Neanderthal fossil (the type specimen) was an elderly individual (elderly for that time) who suffered from severe arthritis-- the scientists of the day incorrectly characterized him as being naturally stooped over. I think the beginning of the rehabilitation of H. neanderthalnsis started about the time of the discovery of the Shanidar fossils. One of the fossils was that of an old, severly deformed individual who clearly had been cared for over a long period of time. Another fossil was the first evidence of Neanderthals burrying their dead.
It just so happened that the Shanidar fossils were discovered in the early 60s-- just in time for them to become the “flower children” of the stone age. Some of the stuff you read about them in the 60s was a bit over the top in a way not dissimilar from the way they were vilified in the early days. For a time they were our siblings, classified as H. sapiens neanderthalensis, but these days most anthropologists put them in their own species. Given what we know about the genetics, it would be hard to make a case for any other classification scheme under the Biological Species Concept.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I’ll leave the rest of this rather standard and soon to be eviscerated stuff alone, but it’s worth pointing out that allelic frequencies shift all the time in response to natural selection pressures.
And that’s all the time I’m going to waste on this.
[/QUOTE]
Just as Mendel’s law was proved subsequently to be subject to many limitations, so will all the collective human wisdom amassed by scientists who deny the existance of a Creator. So I’m sure you are wasting your time chasing after shifting allelic frequencies. Keep fighting. ( And try not to respond too violently to natural selection pressures.)
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Just as Mendel’s law was proved subsequently to be subject to many limitations, so will all the collective human wisdom amassed by scientists who deny the existance of a Creator. So I’m sure you are wasting your time chasing after shifting allelic frequencies. Keep fighting. ( And try not to respond too violently to natural selection pressures.)
[/QUOTE]
Scientists are not all athiests. Evolutionists are not all athiests.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Just as Mendel’s law was proved subsequently to be subject to many limitations, so will all the collective human wisdom amassed by scientists who deny the existance of a Creator. So I’m sure you are wasting your time chasing after shifting allelic frequencies. Keep fighting. ( And try not to respond too violently to natural selection pressures.)
[/QUOTE]
How about you go back to this thread and answer some of the questions asked of you, srmclauren, before chiming in on this one?
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Just as Mendel’s law was proved subsequently to be subject to many limitations,
[/quote]
Refinements.
As in, subsequent refinements in genetic theory.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
so will all the collective human wisdom amassed by scientists who deny the existance of a Creator.
[/quote]
I agree, and I offer you a chance for eternal salvation, or tripple your money back! You don’t want to burn in Heck, do you? Disregard The Truth all you want, but you will have to have a final reckoning with JHVH-1, the mad alien space God from a corporate sin galaxy. And do you really want to do that without “Bob” on your side?
The Stark Fist of Removal stands poised to smite thee! Wotan is a wrathful God! Ayieeeeeeeeeeeee! Slack!
I am authorized to accept your donatations.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
So I’m sure you are wasting your time chasing after shifting allelic frequencies.
[/quote]
~sniffles~
[QUOTE=pragmatic55]
I will simply state that Evolution is often denounced for a theological interpretation of the world. In other words, it is denounced to promote some sort of creation story relevant to a particular religion. These “creation stories” are not biological theories but rather mark the “creation” of meaning. It is only in ex nihilo where nothing can come from something and these creation stories spark the beginning for the explanation of one’s existence.
The Catholic Church once viewed the world as perfect prior to Adam and Eve. None of the animals bit each other, sin only entered in once Adam arrived. Keep in mind Eve wasn’t created to hear God’s speil about not eating from the apple tree. Once science revealed carniverous animals existesed before man, the world of churchly theology was thrown into bedlam.
:
[/QUOTE]
Nitpik: I before E except after C and E before N in “chicken.”
…the “scientists” that pulled these timelines out of the hat have used circular reasoning and bait and switch scams to “prove” their findings. Don’t they date the fossils by the layer in which they are found, and the layer by the types of fossils found there. Can’t they see the errors inherent in the dating methods that can give them any conclusion their theory requires. I guess they will keep getting better at pulling the wool over they eyes of the ignorant masses, just like the proponents of churchly theology.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Refinements.
As in, subsequent refinements in genetic theory.
I agree, and I offer you a chance for eternal salvation, or tripple your money back! You don’t want to burn in Heck, do you? Disregard The Truth all you want, but you will have to have a final reckoning with JHVH-1, the mad alien space God from a corporate sin galaxy. And do you really want to do that without “Bob” on your side?
The Stark Fist of Removal stands poised to smite thee! Wotan is a wrathful God! Ayieeeeeeeeeeeee! Slack!
I am authorized to accept your donatations.
~sniffles~
[/QUOTE]
A refined pig is still a pig.
Careful lest you be hoisted by your own petard. (Don’t worry, I’m not strong enough. I’m sure it’s much too heavy and natural selection has left me in the dust.)
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Just as Mendel’s law was proved subsequently to be subject to many limitations, so will all the collective human wisdom amassed by scientists who deny the existance of a Creator. So I’m sure you are wasting your time chasing after shifting allelic frequencies. Keep fighting. ( And try not to respond too violently to natural selection pressures.)
[/QUOTE]
Do you really think you’re going to convince anyone of anything by uttering these pious nonsequitors? This is Great Debates, not Inane Quips.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Scientists are not all athiests. Evolutionists are not all athiests.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe it would be clearer if I said “the” Creator, or maybe not.
You do well to believe that there is one God: the devils also believe, and tremble.
James 2:19
What kind of god do they believe in?
Thump! Oops, there I go again. Can’t seem to stop. Keep fighting.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Don’t they date the fossils by the layer in which they are found, and the layer by the types of fossils found there.
[/QUOTE]
As you have been repeatedly told, no, this is not the case.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
What kind of god do they believe in?
[/QUOTE]
For an overwhelming majority of scientists, the god of the religion they were brought up in.
[QUOTE=Valgard]
We did not evolve FROM modern day apes. Modern day apes and modern day homo sapiens share a COMMON ANCESTOR if you look back in time far enough.
And if you KEEP looking back you’ll find that both species share a common ancestor with trout. And all other life is related in the same way - think family tree, the latest generations are the newest branches, but you can follow all those branches back to the original trunk.
And just because we have some advantages over another species that doesn’t mean that the other species is doomed (although all the various monkeys are in deep doo-doo from humanity due to being hunted, loss of habitat, etc). I am not a biologist but I believe that various species may have big advantages in their particular habitat, that doesn’t mean said advantages rule supreme. Sure you’re smarter than a chimpanzee but go get in a fight with one and see what happens.
[/QUOTE]
I feel like I’ve been fighting with chimps, and it’s gone far enough. If you look back in time far enough you can easily lose sight of reality and create any fairy tale you like. Have fun. Keep fighting. For some, maybe all of us, our ignorance will only be completely conquered in death.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
Think about birds for a moment. There are crows and robins and eagles-- hundreds of different types of birds. Each has developed a specialty in its particular environment. For example, eagles have developed longer and stronger claws to kill small animals while some smaller birds develop specialized beaks to eat their food. A hummingbird developed a long slender beak and tube-like tongue in order to drink nectar from flowers; a robin can’t do that.
Humans simply branched off because they had a different specialty, like a different type of bird.
[/QUOTE]
Forgive me, but there are some rare ones in the special field of evolution
I have noticed a few mentioning science and evolution so I shall start here.
The uncertanties of the world that draw man into religion are the same that draw some into science.
It is in the search for meaning that we get an explanation for existence, a chance to explain a slither more in the realm of human understanding. Rather than devote themselves to such a persuit, the religous appeal to a particular doctrine no matter how illogical and spend the rest of their lives hoping this belief in the afterlife is correct. Heck forbid man lives until he is at his deathbed and he realizes he blew his life all for the egotistical endeavor of believing in eternal life after death. As einstein said, “Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear and punishment and hope of reward after death”
[QUOTE=John Mace]
No, that’s not right although it’s a common misconception. Everything is always evolving. Chimps and humans split off from a common ancestor abotu 6M years ago. But that common ancestor was neither a chimp nor a human. Go back to my language ananlogy. Spanish, French and Italian all evolved from Latin. But none of them is Latin anymore. Each is a langauge distinct from the other and distinct from Latin. If you can understand this, you can understand evolution.
We are apes. You can’t define “ape” to include chimps gorillas and orangs and exclude humans. We are genetically closer to chimps than chimps are to gorillas. That’s a scientific fact.
[/QUOTE]
Some things are not subject to the type of evolutionary change languages have undergone. We are again talking about different kinds of evolution. The gradual changes in a language could be compared to micro-evolution or interbreeding between similar species, but not to a change from an ape to a human.
It’s that last small difference, where the genetic similarity ends, that sets us apart as a totally different species, with only other humans as ancestors. You can say that you don’t believe it but it doesn’t change the fact. Proponents of the idea that we have common ancestors will take many scientific facts and make many more illogical inferences.
Languages seem to have been designed by men for the purpose of communication. (I hope I can remain logical here.) The romance languages have all been influenced by the language spoken in the Roman Empire. They are all still languages. They are not vegetable gardens or airplanes. Those were designed for a completely different purpose. Latin, I am guessing, had to be learned to a degree in order to get along with the occupation forces, tax collectors, etc. Ergo, some of it got incorporated into the indigenous speech of the regions as the local tribes adapted to the change. English uses a lot as well, and even German didn’t escape. We can document the transitions. Six million imaginary years keeps you free from scrutiny if you want to speculate on the descent of man. You just can’t compare that with the development of languages.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Maybe it would be clearer if I said “the” Creator, or maybe not.
You do well to believe that there is one God: the devils also believe, and tremble.
James 2:19
What kind of god do they believe in?
Thump! Oops, there I go again. Can’t seem to stop. Keep fighting.
[/QUOTE]
Your Bible quote does not mean what you think it means. It merely points out that there is one God; it says nothing about which God that is. To make your point of “Evolutionists don’t believe in the correct God” i’m afraid you’ll need a Bible quote that says that. Feel free to keep Bible thumping, but you do need to have a little bit of knowledge about it in order to know where to thump. 
As an aside, which version of the Bible are you using?
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
Do you really think you’re going to convince anyone of anything by uttering these pious nonsequitors? This is Great Debates, not Inane Quips.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure the truth will convince anyone with ears to hear it. Keep fighting.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
I’m sure the truth will convince anyone with ears to hear it. Keep fighting.
[/QUOTE]
Either you don’t have any ears or this assumption is in error.