Ape to Man
- Started
- Last post
- 273 Responses
- visualplane0
they didn't have botox back then
- ********0
I don't think cavemen were pretty...
Jaline
(Aug 9 05, 11:58)calling me a caveman?
- cosmo0
I don't think cavemen were pretty...
Jaline
(Aug 9 05, 11:58)i guess jessica simpson fits that category then.
- ukit0
Let's put all of this in perspective. In the 1630s, religious institutions wouldn't accept the "theory" that the earth revolved around the sun. I guarantee there were people coming up with passionate, "well-reasoned" arguments refuting Galileo's theory because it deviated from their cherished religious worldview. Those of you disputing the veracity of evolution, which has as much empirical evidence supporting it as any other scientific theory and has been accepted by an overwhelming majority of the scienific community for quite some time, probably would have been on the wrong side of that argument too.
- Mimio0
Exactly ukit,
Look at the claims of most Creationists.
-The earth is 6000 years old (or less)
-The universe itself is less than 6,000 years old.
- Radiocarbon dating is invalid
- Calcium argon dating is invalid
- spectral analysis is invalid
Tell me who's putting the blinders on?
- darthcashmoney0
earth to ape
nothing to man
- -sputnik-0
Phaze, there's no evidence to suggest that any living creature evolved from a prior species.
There are exceptions thoughdiscipler
(Aug 9 05, 11:41)------
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/c…
i guess sharing the same bones across taxons is an exception.
- mrdobolina0
discipler will have some reason why this isnt true, sputnik.
- discipler0
ukit, in the middle ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church did teach geocentrism, but it was not based upon the Bible. They didn't have the faculties to know otherwise. Similarly, Darwin might have drawn some radically different conclusions had he known that the cell was more than just a blob of gelatin with a dark spot in the center, but alas... he only had a light microscope. My point is, it's fallacious to draw a comparison of medieval Catholics squelching Galileo to modern scientists who are discovering, thru modern means, that Darwin was tragically off-base in his hypotheses. The "overwhelming majority" of the scientific community who embrace macroevolution are losing their adherents, and quicker than you might realize. And this is due to current scientific discovery, not religious dogma. It's time to let go of old ideas and look at what science is actually observing. And it is observing an intelligent design to the biological world. Furthermore, the "empirical evidence" you mention amounts to a handful of small bone fragments, which have been extremely controversial since their discovery, which are interpreted thru the lens of naturalism.
- QuincyArcher0
i'm struggling to figure out why this is still being discussed. tomorrow morning, Discipler won't be prostrating himself before a picture of Darwin, just as Mimio will continue to argue against the existence of a creator.
I guess what i'm getting at is that why you people feel the need to keep discussing this, when you know for a fact that it will get you no where, continues to mystify me.
- mrdobolina0
as always quincy. stick to threads that interest you. it is a very simple concept.
Im not in the nt roast thread, because it sucks ;)
- discipler0
sputnik, i'm afraid the issue isn't that cut and dry:
- -sputnik-0
...Furthermore, the "empirical evidence" you mention amounts to a handful of small bone fragments...
discipler
(Aug 9 05, 12:44)---
are you a palentologist?see my post above...that is just one of MANY examples of empirical evidence.
- darthcashmoney0
evolve
- QuincyArcher0
i know dobs...i just hate it when i'm looking for kona's impassioned orations on hobo stabbings, and all i see are evolution vs. creationism threads at the top of the list...
- -sputnik-0
the logic fails in the first paragraph of that ideacenter link, discipler:
"The controversy over the fossil record has to do with whether or not expected evidence of such transitional forms can be found. If fish really did evolve into people, then there ought to be evidence of such a progression. "
YES, it's called REPTILES. jeez.
- discipler0
and mimio, I only know of one creationist on the forefront of the I.D. movement. Stop tryng to lump the two in together.
- mrdobolina0
it all goes back to those same biased web sites, discipler.
anyone who thinks ID is correct, is religious, and they are using this as an attempt to furhter their religious agendas.
what si the agenda of every scientist that believes in evolution? surely not to prove your god wrong.
ya get meh?
- discipler0
sputnik, evolutionists E.H. Colbert and M. Morales admit, "...Despite these similarities, there is no evidence of any Paleozoic amphibians combining the characteristics that would be expected in a single common ancestor. The oldest known frogs, salamanders and caecilians are very similar to their living descendants."
There is no evidence for a transition from a fish to an amphibian.
- discipler0
wrong on all counts, mrdobs. and not even worthy of a reply.