Evolution is proven false

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

Comments (Page 26)

Showing posts 501 - 520 of526
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

L.A.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#508
Dec 11, 2012
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Link, references, something?
My google search gives me nothing relevent.. I r wanna read..
Don't follow any science news, do you?? And its been ALL over the web this last 2 years...where were you??

I'm tired of constantly trying to clue creotards into whats going on, do your own research, I did. I suggest science sites, not religious ones.

I promise you'll find I'm right.

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#509
Dec 11, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't follow any science news, do you?? And its been ALL over the web this last 2 years...where were you??
I'm tired of constantly trying to clue creotards into whats going on, do your own research, I did. I suggest science sites, not religious ones.
I promise you'll find I'm right.
I am not a religious person you self assuming f@cktwit. I asked a simple question. Thanks for being a D!ck.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

L.A.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#510
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>I am not a religious person you self assuming f@cktwit. I asked a simple question. Thanks for being a D!ck.
My apologies to you Fcuktwit, I'm so used to creotards answering in your manor I just assumed you were one. My drill sergeant was right about assuming anything.

You seriously have never heard anything about these subjects before?? It really has been splattered all over science sites for the last 2 years.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/...

http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthal-h...

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,859...

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Goodwin_00.h...

http://archaeology.about.com/od/neanderthals/...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/h/homo_h...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelberge...

http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-neanderthalen...

http://news.discovery.com/history/humans-nean...

http://www.archaeology.org/9709/newsbriefs/dn...

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fos...

There's a lot more...hundreds, maybe thousands. It was well covered for a long time.

I used search terms: "neanderthal and human DNA" and "neanderthal and heidelbergensis" The idea for the last search was brought about by something I read in the first search.

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#511
Dec 11, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
My apologies to you Fcuktwit, I'm so used to creotards answering in your manor I just assumed you were one. My drill sergeant was right about assuming anything.
You seriously have never heard anything about these subjects before?? It really has been splattered all over science sites for the last 2 years.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/...
http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthal-h...
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,859...
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Goodwin_00.h...
http://archaeology.about.com/od/neanderthals/...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/h/homo_h...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelberge...
http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-neanderthalen...
http://news.discovery.com/history/humans-nean...
http://www.archaeology.org/9709/newsbriefs/dn...
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fos...
There's a lot more...hundreds, maybe thousands. It was well covered for a long time.
I used search terms: "neanderthal and human DNA" and "neanderthal and heidelbergensis" The idea for the last search was brought about by something I read in the first search.
Thanks and sorry for the remark.
I have been reading about other things (stupid politics)and haven't been paying attention that field lately. So, it is news to me. Thanks again.

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#512
Dec 11, 2012
 
Crap , now I feel stupid. I have read about this, once a while ago. Still, you listed more articles than I have read so, it is still very much appreciated.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#513
Dec 12, 2012
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
Crap , now I feel stupid. I have read about this, once a while ago. Still, you listed more articles than I have read so, it is still very much appreciated.
I read some of this a while back as well. Don't have the time right now to read them all but does one of them state that Neanderthals were not human? Not *modern* humans, OK, but *not* human???

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#514
Dec 12, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I read some of this a while back as well. Don't have the time right now to read them all but does one of them state that Neanderthals were not human? Not *modern* humans, OK, but *not* human???
It seems as if most of them state that Neanderthals were not Human but the Heidelberg Man was a common anscestor between the two. Only gone through bits and pieces of some of the articles so, not a comprehensive conclusion yet.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#515
Dec 13, 2012
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>It seems as if most of them state that Neanderthals were not Human but the Heidelberg Man was a common anscestor between the two. Only gone through bits and pieces of some of the articles so, not a comprehensive conclusion yet.
It will be interesting to see how this is resolved. To some extent, I suppose it goes back to exactly how you define human. IMHO, using fire, making tools & jewelry, cave painting and burying your dead seems pretty human.

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#516
Dec 13, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It will be interesting to see how this is resolved. To some extent, I suppose it goes back to exactly how you define human. IMHO, using fire, making tools & jewelry, cave painting and burying your dead seems pretty human.
True.Even if they are not considered 'Human' there had to be interbreeding. Humans tend to be "sexually curious". I mean if a guy is willing to attempt intercourse with an animal... a neanderthal has to be a step up.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#517
Dec 14, 2012
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>True.Even if they are not considered 'Human' there had to be interbreeding. Humans tend to be "sexually curious". I mean if a guy is willing to attempt intercourse with an animal... a neanderthal has to be a step up.
From http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/...

"Evidence from studies of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal fossils and humans points to fascinating hypotheses concerning the types of interbreeding that occurred between these two species. Humans and Neanderthals share a small percentage of nuclear DNA. However, humans and Neanderthals do not possess the same mitochondrial DNA. In mammals, mitochondrial DNA is exclusively maternally inherited. Taking into account an understanding of interspecific hybridity, the available data leads to the hypothesis that only male Neanderthals were able to mate with female humans. If Haldane’s Law applied to the progeny of Neanderthals and humans, then female hybrids would survive, but male hybrids would be absent, rare, or sterile. Interbreeding between male Neanderthals and female humans, as the only possible scenario, accounts for the presence of Neanderthal nuclear DNA, the scarcity of Neanderthal Y-linked genes, and the lack of mitochondrial DNA in modern human populations."

Or the modern humans weren't interested in porking the Neanderthal honeys.

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#518
Dec 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
From http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/...

Or the modern humans weren't interested in porking the Neanderthal honeys.
Those Neanderthal honeys should have stayed until bar close

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#519
Dec 15, 2012
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Those Neanderthal honeys should have stayed until bar close
Beer goggles. Good point.
Worried Christian

Lymington, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#520
Feb 12, 2013
 
I heard that the Cambrian explosion was a sword in Darwins side. Did they ever figure out what or why this event occurred the way it did?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#521
Feb 12, 2013
 
Worried Christian wrote:
I heard that the Cambrian explosion was a sword in Darwins side. Did they ever figure out what or why this event occurred the way it did?
You heard wrong. Yes.
Worried Christian

Lymington, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#522
Feb 12, 2013
 
Would that be the rising of ocean calcium explanation?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#523
Feb 12, 2013
 
Worried Christian wrote:
I heard that the Cambrian explosion was a sword in Darwins side.
That's because you heard it from uneducated ignorant people who think their baseless beliefs trump reality.
Worried Christian wrote:
Did they ever figure out what or why this event occurred the way it did?
The evolutionary development of hard-bodied shells over that of soft-bodied organisms enabled fossilization (which is rare anyway) to become more common thus giving rise to the appearance of an explosion of life at the start of the Cambrian period over tens of thousands of years. During which we can still see the unmistakable pattern of evolutionary development in such creatures as the trilobites for example, of which there are many different varieties. This does not help the creationist's desire for Darwin's legacy to disappear because:

1 - The Cambrian Explosion is evidence of evolution.

2 - The period takes place over a time much longer than young Earth creationists assume the universe has been here for.

3 - The argument is merely just another in a long line of fallacious creationist arguments which have been debunked for decades, repeated only because the fundies still don't have anything new to offer because they're not interested in science anyway.

4 - Even if (for the sake of argument) evolution was incorrect (which it isn't) all the anti-evolution propaganda in the world still doesn't constitute a single shred of evidence for invisible Jewish magic.

5 - Since the creationists who oppose science they don't like for theological reasons and that only, they can never validly claim that their position is the most likely as every other religion's invisible magic is also equally as likely.

.

Will the creationists ever figure out that their complete and total utter lack of interest in science will never make reality go away?
Worried Christian

Lymington, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#524
Feb 12, 2013
 
That's quite some post thanks. I never really pushed the 'pro creationism' opinion. I just find it all interesting. I believe that evolution is the best fitting explanation. I am a Christian. But I am steadily losing my faith. I love science and discovery, but I am struggling to accommodate my interest in empirical scientific evidence and the tatters that remain of my faith. Instead of Biblical truth, I find myself facing possible myth and misrepresentation of possible, unknown events. Ultimately I only seek the truth. It is very hard to let go completely of something that has been your entire life. When you are spiritually and devotionally entwined with something, it causes turmoil and frustrated anger that you (me) could have been living a lie. Ultimately you look harder for purpose and reason as a defence. But it's like swimming against the tide. Thank you for your informative reply

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#525
Feb 12, 2013
 
Worried Christian wrote:
That's quite some post thanks. I never really pushed the 'pro creationism' opinion. I just find it all interesting. I believe that evolution is the best fitting explanation. I am a Christian. But I am steadily losing my faith. I love science and discovery, but I am struggling to accommodate my interest in empirical scientific evidence and the tatters that remain of my faith. Instead of Biblical truth, I find myself facing possible myth and misrepresentation of possible, unknown events. Ultimately I only seek the truth. It is very hard to let go completely of something that has been your entire life. When you are spiritually and devotionally entwined with something, it causes turmoil and frustrated anger that you (me) could have been living a lie. Ultimately you look harder for purpose and reason as a defence. But it's like swimming against the tide. Thank you for your informative reply
Worried:

As an agnostic myself, I nevertheless respect Christians who can accomodate their faith and reconcile this faith with the findings of science.

There are quite a few resources you can refer to for additional information and reflection.

If I can, I'll try to relocate these resources throughout the day. As is, I have to go to work now.
Worried Christian

Lymington, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#526
Feb 12, 2013
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Worried:
As an agnostic myself, I nevertheless respect Christians who can accomodate their faith and reconcile this faith with the findings of science.
There are quite a few resources you can refer to for additional information and reflection.
If I can, I'll try to relocate these resources throughout the day. As is, I have to go to work now.
Hey that would be great thanks. Have a super day

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527
Feb 12, 2013
 
Worried: Just a couple of little notes for you to consider while I'm at work.

1) There are some BOGUS "Christian" sites that will attempt to use psuedoscience to convince you (and others on the fence) of a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible, including a 6000 year-old earth, a global flood 4500 years ago, etc.

Among the most egregious are the following: Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and Discovery Institute. Some of these sites convict themselves of being Anti-science on their own sites. For example:

Answers in Genesis

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

Institute for Creation Research

http://www.icr.org/tenets/

The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

Discovery Institute/Wedge Document

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Then on the other hand, we have as ONE example (so far), The Clergy Letter Project

http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
(With 12,844 Christian Clergy signatures as of 2/10/13)

"Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

<<end cut/paste>>

The last link has quite a few other links associated with it that may get you started.

Happy reading! Let us know as to your thoughts.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 501 - 520 of526
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••