Creationist Lies
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- Kes0
oh fuck off discipler. I know what i copy/pasted.
Jesus. What do you mean off topic?
eugh
ok, fair enough
Transition fossils:
1. There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.
Intermediate fossils include
* Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago. Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
* Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
* Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
* Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
* A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
* A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans ).And there are fossils intermediate between these.
2. Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape .
Right, i cut and pasted that
What of it?
- discipler0
aaahhh, parthenogenesis eh, subflux? ;) Here's one to chew on: if the mechanism by which a trait is inhereted is that it conveys a survival advantage to the possessor, then why are we not all self-fertile hermaphrodites, like earthworms? Dimorphic sexuality - male and female - has no reason to ever arise under evolution since every organism would already have within itself the seeds of its own survival.
- TheTick0
Guys, discipler is rhetorical master. He'll only take up specific arguments and run them in logical circles. You cannot win. He is playing by different rules. You're playing chess and he's playing soccer. Impossible to win.
I like Nietzcshe's take on the situation best:
"Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of contact with actuality. It offers purely imaginary causes ("God" "soul," "ego," "spirit," "free will"--or even "unfree"), and purely imaginary effects ("sin" "salvation" "grace," "punishment," "forgiveness of sins"). Intercourse between imaginarybeings ("God," "spirits," "souls"); an imaginarynatural history (anthropocentric; a total denial of the concept of natural causes); an imaginary psychology (misunderstandings of self, misinterpretations of agreeable or disagreeable general feelings--for example, of the states of the nervus sympathicus with the help of the sign-language of religio-ethical balderdash--, "repentance," "pangs of conscience," "temptation by the devil," "the presence of God"); an imaginaryteleology (the "kingdom of God," "the last judgment," "eternal life").--This purely fictitious world, greatly to its disadvantage, is to be differentiated from the world of dreams; the later at least reflects reality, whereas the former falsifies it, cheapens it and denies it. Once the concept of "nature" had been opposed to the concept of "God," the word "natural" necessarily took on the meaning of "abominable"--the whole of that fictitious world has its sources in hatred of the natural (--the real!--), and is no more than evidence of a profound uneasiness in the presence of reality. . . . This explains everything. Who alone has any reason for living his way out of reality? The man who suffers under it. But to suffer from reality one must be a botched reality."
- k770
- Kes0
i know tick, thats why he's annoying. You can see him doing it, but then he's all like
"i've answered everything you said!" and stuff
- discipler0
oh good gawsh, kes. Alright, I give up, let the pasting begin...
No, forget that. I'll just link you an article:
- Kes0
oi k77, we aint arguing
we're discussing ;)
- QuincyArcher0
totally, and add the name of some of the most active arguers to each retard's jersey. that would be awesome! DO IT!
- arinya0
this thread confused me, until i realized i have some people blocked. weehee!
anzelina(Jun 10 05, 12:49)
OH now I get it! Me too. Ha! Serious question now. How much of reconstructed unearthed remains are the real deal and not some scientist or group of scientist guessing as to what the rest of skeleton looks like....did that make sense?
- discipler0
Spend some quality time here too:
- Kes0
no but discipler, that website you posted doesn't at all account for the fossil evidence of human evolution... i dont get it?
- Kes0
yeah discipler, i read practially every page of that website when you first started posting it.
the stuff i copy and pasted wasn't a whole website, it was just examples of different bones that show human evolution. Why dont you counter just THAT?
ok then you give me one point and i'll counter it fuck
That's what i bin doing since the beginning of this website and you got all uppity and started accusing me of this.
You are so evasive you little munkey!
- k770
discussing, riiiiiiiight.
quince i'd do it, but i don't have that kind of time. i'm from the MTV generation.
My Time is Valuable.
- jakeyj0
i don't see why science and christianity are opposed. to me they work nicely together. I should think Christians should be the leading scientists. I doubt the writer of Genesis cared about how or when it happened or even how long it took. It just mattered who did it. So God did it. We have science to tell us how.
- Kes0
Quincy/k77, guys, if you dont like it, stay out of this thread?
- anzelina0
the bible is not a scientific textbook. most of it is symbolic.
uhm. i'm not saying anything regarding evolution or creation, i'm just saying.
- mrdobolina0
Iran has a written history that is over 8,000 years old.