Evolution

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 9:48 pm You are expressing false thoughts on Darwin.
Not "thoughts" Scott...and not "expressing." I'm just passing on information. What you do with it is up to you.
But OBVIOUSLY the "information", which you are passing on, could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. Or, do you actually BELIEVE otherwise?

And, according to your "logic" here absolutely ANY one can pass on absolutely ANY information, and it will ALWAYS be up to the "other one", the receiver. Which is OBVIOUSLY a very DISTORTED interpretation of what to do in Life.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm Refutations of Darwin's initial theorys have been many and frequent -- and not merely from Theists, but from Evolutionists as well.
And, refutations of religious people's BELIEFS have been MANY and FREQUENT, and not merely from "atheists", but also from many other human beings, including the ones who call "themselves" "religious". So, what was your point here, EXACTLY?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm Nagel's recent critique is perhaps the most serious: that the evolutionary progressivism inherent in the theory stands to cripple secular science form any prospect of understanding things like mind and consciousness.
But NONE of 'you', human beings, in the days when this was written, could EXPLAIN FULLY what the words 'mind' and 'consciousness' refers to EXACTLY. So, what was your point here, EXACTLY?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm But a faulty cosmological theory is a scientific problem not necessarily a theological one.
YET, very contradictory, you do NOT seem to SEE a 'problem' with ANY of the MANY upon MANY FAULTS and FLAWS in your statements and CLAIMS.

I ALWAYS find it Truly humorous how ALL human beings can "clearly" see fault in ANY view or claim that is not compatible with what they currently BELIEVE is true. The ability 'you', human beings, have to being completely and utterly BLIND to your own obviously DISTORTED and Wrong BELIEFS never ceases to amaze.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm As I said earlier, it really doesn't matter, from a theological perspective, if we were to ignore all the important critiques that have been offered by both sides, and merely take animal evolutionism on faith. That makes no difference to theology, since God could choose to use any process in order to create animals that He wished...progressivist or instantaneous. "Day," in Scritpture, sometimes refers to a 24 hour period, but often refers to an era, such as "the day of the Lord," which is clearly not merely a 24 hour day.
If it is REALLY "clearly" NOT merely a 24 hour day, then what does "the day of the Lord" mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

Your INABILITY to answer and CLARIFY shows and REVEALS just how CLOSED you REALLY ARE "immanuel can".
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm What matters, where the pith of the matter of disagreement between Evolutionism and Theism is strictly over the status of mankind. Is mankind a unique creation, or is he/she merely a latter-day animal, one grown up accidentally from the muck and doomed to oblivion?
Evolution AND Creation BOTH play a part in Life.

Human beings are a UNIQUE creation, just like EVERY other 'thing' is OBVIOUSLY a UNIQUE creation AND just like EVERY 'thing' animal, the human being animal has evolved to be a, so called, "latter-day animal", in the day when this was written.

Whether this was accidental or intentional WILL BE DISCOVERED and UNCOVERED, later on, from when this is being written.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm My suggestion about the latter would be that nobody believes it.
Well your suggestion here is OBVIOUSLY Wrong, ONCE AGAIN.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm And you can tell both by the way they live and what they say about man. It's fair to say that everybody knows mankind is actually special and unique, and the most ardent Evolutionist doesn't actually react to mankind as if Evolutionism is true.
Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of how the human beings, in the days when this was written, would say just about ANY thing when 'trying to' back up and support their ALREADY obtained and currently held onto BELIEFS.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm So that's the starting point. Animal descent is irrelevant; the alleged "ascent of man" is all that is important.
If you really BELIEVE that this is the "starting point", then you REALLY have a LOT more to learn and understand.

Also, considering that "man" or that the alleged "ascent of man" is all that is important SHOWS just how short and narrowed sighted some human beings REALLY where, in the days when this was written. (That is; the days BEFORE 'the day of the Lord').
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:54 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:43 pm If Darwin is false, then Genetics is false.
Not at all. Genetics is just fine.

Actually, it's genetics that puts the nail in the coffin of the old "ascent of man" theory...though it was already dying of its own dishonesty before that. Read about the various scandals associated with the "missing links." Start with the famous "Piltdown Man" Incident, which should also make it quite clear to everyone that something other than scientific honesty is operating in that theory.
The BLINDNESS SHOWN never ceases to amaze.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 3:45 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 3:34 pm Scientific dishonesty exists because scientific honesty is normal.
Ah.

So now...conclusive evidence of dishonesty is...evidence of honesty. :shock:

You're going to have to give me a few minutes to get my head around that logic. :roll:
What we are also waiting for, is for you to be Honest and answer the CLARIFYING QUESTION, 'In your opinion is it only mankind that has attained the pinnacle of evolution?', which was obviously, and clearly, posed to you.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:54 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:43 pm If Darwin is false, then Genetics is false.
Not at all. Genetics is just fine.

Actually, it's genetics that puts the nail in the coffin of the old "ascent of man" theory...though it was already dying of its own dishonesty before that. Read about the various scandals associated with the "missing links." Start with the famous "Piltdown Man" Incident, which should also make it quite clear to everyone that something other than scientific honesty is operating in that theory.
You don't know what you are talking about and I am certain that you do not understand the theory.

"Missing links" is something you ONLY hear from by the Evangelical Christian Creationist arguers. "Piltdown Man" was an OLD fraud that has no ability to discredit the theory.

How do you logically infer from 'supporting' evidence (circumstantial) that some ONE fraud by a criminal mind suffices to dislodge a theory that isn't dependent upon it? Besides the fact that there is literally NO evidence for some religious assumption that some single man and woman existed, can you NOT fathom the possiblility of someone to make such a fruad? If you also think this somehow discredits ALL scientists supporting Evolutionary theory, find the PLENTY of such proof of fraud this rhetoric is intended to imply such by innuendo.

You also have to prove how genetics is NOT related to the Darwinian theory. And again, this line of argument ONLY comes from the extremely religious attempting to discredit what successfully discredits their own cult to be effective in conning their weak minded flock.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Scott Mayers »

Belinda wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:24 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:12 am ...
Thank you. I enjoyed being reminded of the preparatory and subsequent discoveries, and hope I will remember them . I note especially that you quote Darwin's book as "On the origin of the species" which I suggest signifies that Darwin knew and accepted that " the" species is mankind and that his publication would create a lot of controversy and even hatred.
Thank you in return. But note that his was only the layout. The logic that connected these and what in particular the theory's conclusions suggested needs to be laid out. I'm hoping that those like Immanuel Can here read that so that I can show what the theory of Natural Selection states.


If Immanuel Can is reading, will you please look at that post first and tell us what you think you may disagree with of that background? To competently argue, we'd need to share agreement to the same background knowledge that Darwin had and why it suggested his initial hypothesis leading to his theory.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:54 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:54 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:43 pm If Darwin is false, then Genetics is false.
Not at all. Genetics is just fine.

Actually, it's genetics that puts the nail in the coffin of the old "ascent of man" theory...though it was already dying of its own dishonesty before that. Read about the various scandals associated with the "missing links." Start with the famous "Piltdown Man" Incident, which should also make it quite clear to everyone that something other than scientific honesty is operating in that theory.
You don't know what you are talking about and I am certain that you do not understand the theory.
You'd be wrong a out that.
"Piltdown Man" was an OLD fraud..
Yes, it was.

And I am old enough to remember when it was included in public school textbooks, popular culture, and even museum dioramas. And you know, too, that you can STILL buy t-shirts and novelty posters based on the (now-discredited) ape-to-man theory...though it was once trumpeted by the scientific establshment as "pure" science.

So much for the idea that Human Evolutionism is "just science" and those who seek to advocate it don't lie.
You also have to prove how genetics is NOT related to the Darwinian theory.
You should read what I say, Scott.

I didn't say it's not "related to" Darwinian Theory; I said it conclusviely disproves the ape-to-man theory, which no sophisticated Evolutionist any longer holds.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:13 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:54 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:54 pm
Not at all. Genetics is just fine.

Actually, it's genetics that puts the nail in the coffin of the old "ascent of man" theory...though it was already dying of its own dishonesty before that. Read about the various scandals associated with the "missing links." Start with the famous "Piltdown Man" Incident, which should also make it quite clear to everyone that something other than scientific honesty is operating in that theory.
You don't know what you are talking about and I am certain that you do not understand the theory.
You'd be wrong a out that.
"Piltdown Man" was an OLD fraud..
Yes, it was.

And I am old enough to remember when it was included in public school textbooks, popular culture, and even museum dioramas. And you know, too, that you can STILL buy t-shirts and novelty posters based on the (now-discredited) ape-to-man theory...though it was once trumpeted by the scientific establshment as "pure" science.

So much for the idea that Human Evolutionism is "just science" and those who seek to advocate it don't lie.
You also have to prove how genetics is NOT related to the Darwinian theory.
You should read what I say, Scott.

I didn't say it's not "related to" Darwinian Theory; I said it conclusviely disproves the ape-to-man theory, which no sophisticated Evolutionist any longer holds.
Asserting that Evolutionists do not believe in an ascent from man is an example of 'fraud' or some sad victim of being conned by your cult/religious authorities here. I don't know of any biologist who would NOT recognize evolution as true. Give me the statistics and sources of your claim.

As to the Piltdown man, why are you refusing to answer my questions about its relevance today? Scientists aren't the ones asserting to be made up of superhuman capacities. The religious are the ones asserting some assumption that the scientist are expected to be perfect. It was scientists who actually discovered the fraud and POLITICS appeared to play a role in its longevity at the time.

I already told you that genetics necessarily can only be true if Darwin's foundation is true. Read the background I mentioned above and, if you doubt the pretheoretical evidence Darwin had to deal with, let's hear it. I can argue evolution based only on what evidential facts you accept. What, if any, is the background evidence going in do you deny. I am doubting that you are sincere to wanting to procede with a logical argument in good faith. But I'd like you to try to prove me wrong by convening to determine which evidences you accept going INTO the logic of the theory.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Scott Mayers »

From "Level of support for evolution" on Wikipedia,
The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public, and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation–evolution controversy, and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific, and political issues. The subject is especially contentious in countries where significant levels of non-acceptance of evolution by the general population exists, but evolution is taught at public schools and universities.

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.[3]

There are religious sects and denominations in several countries for whom the theory of evolution is in conflict with creationism that is central to their beliefs, and who therefore reject it: in the United States,[4][5][6][7][8][9] South Africa,[10] India, Muslim world, South Korea, Singapore, the Philippines, and Brazil, with smaller followings in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Japan, Italy, Germany, Israel,[11] Australia,[12] New Zealand,[13] and Canada.[14]
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:45 am Asserting that Evolutionists do not believe in an ascent from man...
Do you actually read ANYTHING I write? :shock:
why are you refusing to answer my questions about its relevance today?
I did answer your quesstion: I said that the Piltdown Man shows dishonesty on the part of the Evolutionists.

And you agreed, actually; for you acknowledged it as a fraud.
I already told you that genetics necessarily can only be true if Darwin's foundation is true.

A ridiculous claim.

Its as ridiculous as claiming that graviity only works if Evolutionism is true. Not even close to realistic.

Darwinism was not founded on genetics. Genetics, the science, didn't exist at that point. Darwin's initial theory was based on observation and analogy. But I'm pretty sure you're not paying attention anyway.

I'll say again: what we're talking about is the "Ascent of Man" theory, of which things like the Piltdown Man is an exempar of a hoax. The rest of Darwinism has no particular relevance, at least theologically.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:46 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:45 am Asserting that Evolutionists do not believe in an ascent from man...
Do you actually read ANYTHING I write? :shock:
why are you refusing to answer my questions about its relevance today?
I did answer your quesstion: I said that the Piltdown Man shows dishonesty on the part of the Evolutionists.

And you agreed, actually; for you acknowledged it as a fraud.
I already told you that genetics necessarily can only be true if Darwin's foundation is true.

A ridiculous claim.

Its as ridiculous as claiming that graviity only works if Evolutionism is true. Not even close to realistic.

Darwinism was not founded on genetics. Genetics, the science, didn't exist at that point. Darwin's initial theory was based on observation and analogy. But I'm pretty sure you're not paying attention anyway.

I'll say again: what we're talking about is the "Ascent of Man" theory, of which things like the Piltdown Man is an exempar of a hoax. The rest of Darwinism has no particular relevance, at least theologically.
Why do you put "ism's" onto words, as though it actually works?

What is CLEARLY OBVIOUS is that you HAVE NOT, and CAN NOT, back up and support YOUR BELIEFS.

What is also just as CLEARLY OBVIOUS is the FACT that EVERY thing evolves. You can NOT refute this, so WHY do you even 'try to'.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:46 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:45 am Asserting that Evolutionists do not believe in an ascent from man...
Do you actually read ANYTHING I write? :shock:
why are you refusing to answer my questions about its relevance today?
I did answer your quesstion: I said that the Piltdown Man shows dishonesty on the part of the Evolutionists.

And you agreed, actually; for you acknowledged it as a fraud.
HOW the hell do you interpret the collection of Evolutionists to be culpable of some crime for one person's behavior? How do you interpret the Evolutionary theory as related? Do you think that Darwin begun some conspiratorial contract among scientists everywhere to support a piece of evidence that was NOT immediately available to them?

Now compare the religious frauds everywhere throughout time and then let me ask you if even just ONE of them, say the The scandals that brought down the Bakkers, once among US's most famous televangelists? Why is this scandal somehow not convincing enough to dispell the whole of religion?

And don't worry, there are plenty more; I only mentioned this one given you figure that there was some intentional need for Evolutionists to require tossing out their whole theory based on the actions of a few fraudulent persons. You DO know that this was also ONLY the U.K. and politics played a role in preventing skeptical scientists from getting close enought to investigate?

But let's take the similar example withing just Christianity: the Shroud of Turin. I've seen the few documents on this years ago in which the scientists have exposed this as a fraud, something that SHOULD be defaulted to given the lack of credibility of the existence of Jesus.

Again, I just randomly picked this ONE example. [We have a count of two now in total] Even if you may still presume it real for doubting the scientists, how do you 'trust' the scientists who exposed the Piltdown Man and those who questioned its authenticity from the beginning?

Did anyone assert this as 'scientific' enough to CLOSE the case regarding mankind's origin? You certainly can't presume that scientists think that ANY positive supporting fossils suffices to prove anything. All that science values most is the NEGATIVE anti-supporting evidence where it is simply circumstantial and 'weak' in kind. It would be valuable to science if the evidence showed a linkage to Adam, a being who would not have any prior link. There is also plenty of fossil evidences of links between species. How does the one fraud discount them?

Besides, did I not mention that the appendix is a rudimentary second stomach that is still used in cattle? We have more junk DNA (inactive records that simply have a 'delete' or 'ignore' tag) which if it is still a complete 'file' has the capacity to be turned back on (comparing it to conventional linear hard drives' means of deleting versus swiping old files and then 'undeleting'). This is called, "epigentics" and can turn on genes that give people prior evolutionary features.
I already told you that genetics necessarily can only be true if Darwin's foundation is true.

A ridiculous claim.

Its as ridiculous as claiming that graviity only works if Evolutionism is true. Not even close to realistic.

Darwinism was not founded on genetics. Genetics, the science, didn't exist at that point. Darwin's initial theory was based on observation and analogy. But I'm pretty sure you're not paying attention anyway.

I'll say again: what we're talking about is the "Ascent of Man" theory, of which things like the Piltdown Man is an exempar of a hoax. The rest of Darwinism has no particular relevance, at least theologically.
You clearly missed how I stated it logically.

If X then Y == If not-Y, then not-X.

The first is an affirming conditional and means the Y can be true or false when X is false; the second is
equivalent but denying the consequence assures that X is false. Causation is not from X but from Y here. Example, "If (I exist), then (I had a mother)." I used X = "Genetics" and Y = "Evolution". The form means that Evolution is needed apriori for Genetics to be true because genetics is the MECHANISM of evolution that Darwn didn't have at his time. Darwin's theory plus the mechanism = modern evolution and the genetics entailed as its mechanism.

All skeletal parts of all animals have correlations with humans. For a simple example, we have five fingers (four digits and a thumb); Animals that appear to only have four fingers have their 'thumb' as a useless feature part way up its legs. Snakes have rudimentary legs in their skeleton that are shrunk up similar to our appendix. This means they too evolved from a prior being that had legs.

I understand you have a religious belief that you fear would dislodge your faith if man evolved from some animal related to the Chimps (genetics Comparing Chimp DNA to Humans.

Unfortunately your beliefs are both illogical and unsound. Religion itself evolved too from origins in non-religious secular factors that have lost the appropriate link to its actual histories. For instance, Adam and Eve was a popular story from many different cultures in ancient history referencing an allogorical origin using particular people to represent the atomic original Man (prior to sexual reproduction) and the rest of mankind forEVEr more. [Eve is a common root origin for 'et cetera', like ever, evening, even (versus 'odd' for Adam). Adam is the word knows then as "earth, ground" in opposition to Aten as the Sun; Eden is the rise of the sun and Atum (autumn is the intentional respelling to hide the root) stand for "the fall" of the Sun. "Sun" also correlates with "son"; Solomon is "Sol amen" {The sun's end, which likely referenced the last of the prior Egyptian dominance] "Jerusalem" [Je ra sol amen = I (the) sight of the sun's end or reflection]. "David" is for "the Divide"; "Moses" is Egyptian for a type of leader [like Tutmoses]. ....et cetera....

The fact that you can make a link of most of the bible to secular NON-religious origins where the terms used reference to everyday meanings to the ancients suggest the various books of Torah, though no longer interpreted 'normally', would likely have been understood in its day as non-religious. They probably laughed at the religious of their day of now dead religions and their works no longer existing or is embedded in the archeaological finds prior to Judaism being turned strictly into a religion. When you compare anything discovered in science as 'fraudulent' I assure you that religion is the MOST abusive means of conning people for a matter of controlling OTHER's behaviors in all times and different cults.

You assert some trust in evolution but deny the human connection for STRICTLY religious reasons. If religion had no meaning and power for you, you would not be so blind as to recognize how rational Darwinian Natural Selection is the root of evolution and still necessarily true (though not complete) of our essential foundations for genetics. And man is not anything 'special' beyond our own reflected illusion of superiority.

I'm sorry if this hurts but you have to separate your emotions from the logic. And it does not lead to chaos should people lack religion. The delusions of religious personalities makes up nearly all the terrorists today and has MORE of a concern to humanity's health than lacking some magical significance to our superiority complex.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:31 pm HOW the hell do you interpret the collection of Evolutionists to be culpable of some crime for one person's behavior?
I don't hold them responsible for his behaviour: I hold them responsible for their's.

It's one thing to be fooled by one man one time. It's quite another not to have done your scientific due-diligence, and then to go about perpetuating the fraud extensively in textbooks, museums and popular culture, telling everybody you "know" how mankind rose from monkeys, when in fact you don't have data that warrants any such bold nonsense.

And to continue that way for years, infecting generations of school children with rubbish you're going to have to retract in shame because your vaunted method of investigation was so poor? For that, I hold them responsible.

But it might be forgivable if they'd ever formally retracted on a scale commensurate with the fraud. If, once they'd found out they'd been had, they'd have backpeddled publicly, and said, "We're sorry: we've been wrong. The 'ascent of man,' which we told you we had scientific evidence for, was from beginning to end a sham. We had only fragments, and put together a just-so story, and sold it to you and your children as fact. We'll never do it again, and we're very ashamed of our behaviour. Science requires more honesty than we have manifested"...if they had said all that, then it might be forgivable.

But they never did. They went on, patched up the theory with wax, and pretended it was scientific business-as-usual. They even let people continue to believe that the monkey-to-man theory was true, long after they had changed to the common-ancestor theory. And they never admitted their error, or tried to undo all the damage they had done.

And for that, we should all hold them culpable.

And we should all remember the lesson, which is simply this: not all that gets stamped "science" or "fact" really is. And we can't trust even our scientific "elites" to practice special honesty, when their reptuations are at stake. They're just not that honest all the time. So we should keep watching them carefully.

P.S.
I understand you have a religious belief that you fear would dislodge your faith if man evolved from some animal related to the Chimps (genetics Comparing Chimp DNA to Humans.
You're making a very simple error here, Scott: namely, that resemblance is not identity. One of the few points on which Evolutionism and Creationism actually agree is that mankind was fashioned out of the same kind of "stuff" as lower animals. (Genesis uses the phrase "of the dust of the earth.") So that there are similarities is unremarkable, and settles nothing at all. Either theory would be sustainable on that data.

But on Neo-Darwinian theory, you should be aware that the monkey-to-man theory is already dead, and has been, for a long time. It's no longer even considered scientifically plausible. Nowadays, Evolutionists go with what's called the "Common Ancestor Theory," in which the supposition is that mankind and apes "diverged" long ago...and probably back in the "primordial ooze," or shortly thereafter.

So you're defending what is, even from a purely secular-scientific perspective, a theory that's as dead as the dodo. Not that scientists have been in a hurry to point that out, of course; like the Piltdown Man, it's just another embarassing failure that they ever advocated it at all.

Naturally, they are a bit reticent about saying so.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:58 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:31 pm HOW the hell do you interpret the collection of Evolutionists to be culpable of some crime for one person's behavior?
I don't hold them responsible for his behaviour: I hold them responsible for their's.

It's one thing to be fooled by one man one time. It's quite another not to have done your scientific due-diligence, and then to go about perpetuating the fraud extensively in textbooks, museums and popular culture, telling everybody you "know" how mankind rose from monkeys, when in fact you don't have data that warrants any such bold nonsense.

And to continue that way for years, infecting generations of school children with rubbish you're going to have to retract in shame because your vaunted method of investigation was so poor? For that, I hold them responsible.
You are still not recognizing that ANY 'fossil' evidence itself is not the reason evolution is true including mankind. The KIND of PROOF of fossils is only used to show WHICH living things relate in comparison to other living things by which order and their connections. Piltdown man is also a DEAD issue and needs no apology by the theory nor the theorists who discovered the logic of evolution.

I already challenged you with the comparative concern against religious frauds to which you intentionally ignored. Religion is not an 'alternative' authority for science and is the only class of people who even separate human beings from the rest of biological evolution.

Prove counterscientifically that man is NOT included in evolution. Since you are most concerned about Darwin, narrow your proof to show that humans today do not evolve by Selection, the part that Darwin's theory relates to.
Immanual Can wrote:...

And we should all remember the lesson, which is simply this: not all that gets stamped "science" or "fact" really is. And we can't trust even our scientific "elites" to practice special honesty, when their reptuations are at stake. They're just not that honest all the time. So we should keep watching them carefully.
I already recognize how science could be influenced by politics. But as to the significant issues in contention are almost always due to something religious.
Immanuel Can wrote:
I understand you have a religious belief that you fear would dislodge your faith if man evolved from some animal related to the Chimps (genetics Comparing Chimp DNA to Humans.
You're making a very simple error here, Scott: namely, that resemblance is not identity. One of the few points on which Evolutionism and Creationism actually agree is that mankind was fashioned out of the same kind of "stuff" as lower animals. (Genesis uses the phrase "of the dust of the earth.") So that there are similarities is unremarkable, and settles nothing at all. Either theory would be sustainable on that data.
Again, given you argue for religion using weaker forms of arguments to defend religious issues, it is suggestive of WHY you may think that Piltdown man suffices to disprove the evolution as it relates to humanity. I offered to expand upon what Darwin argued and how he initiated his arguments from other sciences at the time that also lacked the sufficient degree of information we now know with certainty. You are not interested.

Here I found a source that may be more welcoming of you considering they happen to be Christian:
BioLogos. I obviously disagree to the religious factors but that link appears at least to express the logic of evolution appropriately and why this includes humans. Evolution that includes humans are a fact and the evidence is overwhelming and only as undeniable as one's degree of religious belief is less rational.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Age »

Does "immanuel can" still really believe that some thing, known as God, created and placed two things, known as human beings, which God named "adam" and "eve", on earth, and let us say, from absolutely nothing, or from something that was not already on earth?

If yes, then what is wrong with "immanuel can"?

But if "immanuel can" does not believe the above, then what does "immanuel can" believe occurred?

There is absolutely NOTHING in evolution that could even be disagreed with or disputed, let alone refuted. So, what exactly is 'it' that "immanuel can" is 'trying to' argue against, or for, here?
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:46 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:45 am Asserting that Evolutionists do not believe in an ascent from man...
Do you actually read ANYTHING I write? :shock:
why are you refusing to answer my questions about its relevance today?
I did answer your quesstion: I said that the Piltdown Man shows dishonesty on the part of the Evolutionists.

And you agreed, actually; for you acknowledged it as a fraud.
I already told you that genetics necessarily can only be true if Darwin's foundation is true.

A ridiculous claim.

Its as ridiculous as claiming that graviity only works if Evolutionism is true. Not even close to realistic.

Darwinism was not founded on genetics. Genetics, the science, didn't exist at that point. Darwin's initial theory was based on observation and analogy. But I'm pretty sure you're not paying attention anyway.

I'll say again: what we're talking about is the "Ascent of Man" theory, of which things like the Piltdown Man is an exempar of a hoax. The rest of Darwinism has no particular relevance, at least theologically.
Immanuel Can, your debating skill is more that of politician than scientist.
Post Reply