• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?


  • Total voters
    60
That's what Truth Detector used to say. After he blatantly fabricated arguments from quotes that in no way supported what he claimed. Try again.

I did not fabricate anything. Please point out something I fabricated. You keep wanting to ignore your own posts. And the point I came in.

And your argument was awful. I see you are pretending that I never made the subject about literal creationism despite saying so. I find it hilarious you claimed I never said anything about YEC after you quoted me specifically discussing literal creationism.

Please point out how my "argument" was awful? Then you go off on some tangent that has nothing to do with my direct comment.

I am not pretending anything. I came in late and responded to you saying...

But that would result in him no longer being a creationist. Creationism only survives in education, fact free zones. Educating oneself results in a creationist no longer being a creationist, or a creationist who knows their belief is wrong, but is purely in it to milk the money from his former ilk. Doctor Snelling for example. Who has submitted real geology papers while moon lighting as a fake creationist for the paycheck.

Ikari's statement was about evolution and abiogenesis, not YEC. Your comment makes no mention of it. I responded going by the ACTUAL definition of the word...

Not true.

Being confused about the difference between abiogenesis and evolution has nothing at all to do with "him no longer being a creationist." I am a creationist and yet evolution is a fact. It has not changed my view or rocked the foundations of my faith. Now details about certain aspects of evolution are questionable, but in the end for the most part it is supported by good evidence.

Your post is mainly baiting, blanket statements and misinformation.

My comment was about being a creationist not rocking the foundations of the faithful.

Then you went of the reservation.

My second responce to you was to this...

But we cannot ignore the fact that some religious people are. And some are truly retarded. This one creationist I met (a few others tangled with him) argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true. When confronted with the issue of the geological record not sorting species by mass and shape, he basically argued that water doesn't sort by mass and shape. Except that you can test this. In your sink. A 5 lb dinosaur should end up on average, at a higher strata then a woolly mammoth. They don't. Ever. The problem with some evolution deniers is that they basically have a belief that requires their God to be a greatest deceiver of all time.

To which I responded...

So because one person is stupid, we must not ignore this fact and judge all people on the basis that some people are stupid? OK. Your logic makes perfect sense. :doh

Notice how none of my responses had anything at all to do with YEC directly? You made a fallacy argument and I pointed that out with the correct definition.


Still waiting for your apology.

OK. I am sorry my comments made yours look dumb. :lol:

Have fun blackdog!

I am.

Indeed. It doesn't. You were absolutely, 100% WRONG. Thanks for admitting it!

Uh why do you lie?

Indeed! You claimed I said nothing about YEC after you quoting me specifically discussing YEC. You clearly descended into typical knee jerk reaction as you demonstrated clear lack of facts.

Please feel free to point out where I did this? :lol:

Glad we can agree you screwed up.

Well more personal attacks. Have you no argument at all?
 
But how does that prove that TE doesn't cover macroevolution? As you stated, TE is just a viewpoint based on interpretation and religious conviction. And as you stated they are vast. How does that prove TE doesn't discuss macro?

Because it does not recognize macro evolution as valid. The majority of Theistic evolutionists do not recognize it. Who do you think originally coined the phrase?

Indeed. Blackdog seems to define theistic evolution as YEC as he accused me of never discussing TE despite me stating "literal." That's exceptionally peculiar.

I have already shown using your posts this is not true.
 
Theistic evolution is simple...

The theistic evolutionist believes organic evolution was simply "the way God did it" as He brought the Universe and its contents into existence. ...there are almost as many varieties of theistic evolution as there are people who espouse it,
I agree.

a few characteristics are common to all. For example, the theistic evolutionist believes in: (a) an old Earth; (b) wholly natural processes responsible for life as we see it, once the initial matter was brought into existence by God, and; (c) a figurative (non-literal) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.
I would not define theistic evolution as you have done. But that is irrelevant as long as we are both conveying our ideas clearly to one another.

Most of us believe the flood written from the perspective of a man 2000 years ago is true (as far as the flood goes.) The flood was a local event that encompassed the entire world of the writer. So the writer of the story did not lie or deceive.
I don't believe "most" Christians agree. Most of the Christians in the US are members of sects of Christianity which predominately put forth a literal interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps individuals may differ in their personal or private beliefs but one can easily check the theology of Catholics, Baptists, and others and see that such liberal views as you espouse are growing in number but still a minority.

Scientific evidence does support a massive flood in the location described in the Bible.

If anyone is interested: The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local
I am sure literalists can provide links and arguments showing why you are wrong as well.

Of course, ALL biblical contradictions, inconsistencies and errors can be "explained" by speculation, "interpretation" and opinion. Offering alternative "explanations" does not remove the contradiction, inconsistency or error, but presents a "positive spin" that MAY apply or may not.

Scourge this was a very good post. You and I differ less than you think.
We are all human and share the very similar culture after all. Except for the extremely religious, our religion or lack thereof has little effect on our day to day lives.

For example, how many times do you consider or make decisions based on your religion when you buy groceries, drive to work, or chat with co-workers, and friends?

The difference is I believe things are real that you think are a fairy tail.
I disagree with your use of the word "fairy-tail".

I reject the literal truth of the supernatural events reported in the OT as well as those in the NT for many of the same reasons I reject supernatural claims in other holy-books. But I don't think mythical, legendary, folkloric or allegorical nature invalidates the Bibles message anymore than the books of others. Someone else put it better than I can:

If the Bible is read for what it actually, inarguably IS, a collection of ancient documents from a variety of sources and places and with wildly varying points of view, styles, and agendas, it has value of many kinds; but not -- repeat, NOT -- as either the Actual, Literal Words of God, nor as mere fiction, fable and fairytale. It is the record of men, and a few women, of ancient times -- prophets, poets, priests and kings, some brilliant, some thoughtful, some obsessed, and some mad as hatters -- thinking and writing ABOUT God. It should neither be swallowed whole nor dismissed and ignored entirely.


It's entirely possible to take the Bible or any other holy text seriously without taking it literally. Indeed, one wonders how else an intelligent, educated person would take it.
 
Last edited:
As a metaphorical story. That's not what what everyone else is talking about.

Not as the literal truth.

That would depend on who you asked now wouldn't it?

Like how you falsely claimed I said nothing about YEC after you quoting me discussing just YEC?

You can apologize now.

I said "in the quote I responded to" which I have posted again above. You went into fallacy land, not me. :mrgreen:

Btw, look up "LITERAL" in the dictionary. You seem to be very unaware of what it means.

I know what it means and as I show above have no issue.

I guess you do think that literal creationism = theistic evolution then. Kind of stupid no?

What is stupid is you brought it in as I did not respond to that. I posted it above...

Enjoy.

No I don't think they are the same thing, but they share aspects you want, no need to ignore.

Have a nice day.
 
But how does that prove that TE doesn't cover macroevolution? As you stated, TE is just a viewpoint based on interpretation and religious conviction. And as you stated they are vast. How does that prove TE doesn't discuss macro?
On one hand we are discussing a scientific theory and on the other we are discussing beliefs. All I am saying is that "theistic evolution" is a belief that is ill-defined and vague, where as the theory of evolution as a scientific term is NOT.

You can define theistic evolution however you wish but it is a non-issue as long as we are both conveying our ideas clearly to one another.
 
I did not fabricate anything. Please point out something I fabricated. You keep wanting to ignore your own posts. And the point I came in.

You mean the posts I re-quoted showing me saying "literal" that you are now pretending don't exist despite quoting them yourself? Good job on that btw.


Please point out how my "argument" was awful?

Because you are trying to apply the localized flood story to my literal flood argument. It's apples to oranges. TE doesn't believe in a global, literal flood. hence why I'm starting to believe you think YEC = Theistic evolution. You keep applying theistic arguments to YEC as proof I talked about theistic despite me stating literal.

Then you go off on some tangent that has nothing to do with my direct comment.

See above. Less fail next post. Thanks.

I am not pretending anything. I came in late and responded to you saying.

And 6 minutes later you responded to my first post. Which explicitly discussed Literal Creationism. Which you have gone on record saying contains no references to YEC.

Still waiting for you to admit you screwed that one up.

Ikari's statement was about evolution and abiogenesis, not YEC. Your comment makes no mention of it. I responded going by the ACTUAL definition of the word

See the post above that one. Post 100, the one you are now pretending doesn't exist because it blows your entire argument out of the water. Furthermore, I referenced Dr. Snelling who is a literal creationist, posting articles for Answers in Genesis that denies evolution entirely and pushes a YEC only view. Do you damn research next time. Seriously.

Just admit you are wrong and we can move on.

Notice how none of my responses had anything at all to do with YEC directly? You made a fallacy argument and I pointed that out with the correct definition.

Your inability to figure out despite the blatant explicit discussion of YEC is not my fault.

Let's see. Outright stating literal creationism doesn't mean literal to you. Discussing a literal creationist by NAME doesn't mean literal to you. If you cannot get the hint with me STATING literal, that's not my fault.

Thus, why I stated you may have a reading comprehension problem. If so, I apologize for being a prick to you.

OK. I am sorry my comments made yours look dumb. :lol:

Okay. I am sorry for picking on someone who has a significant mental disability that reduces his ability to comprehended written English.

Literal to you apparently means not literal. :2wave:

Uh why do you lie?

Please feel free to point out where I did this? :lol:

How did I lie?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ientists-and-religious-21.html#post1059328591

You quoted me saying this:

But we cannot ignore the fact that some religious people are. <--- You implyed ignorant And some are truly retarded. This one creationist I met (a few others tangled with him) argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true. When confronted with the issue of the geological record not sorting species by mass and shape, he basically argued that water doesn't sort by mass and shape. Except that you can test this. In your sink. A 5 lb dinosaur should end up on average, at a higher strata then a woolly mammoth. They don't. Ever. The problem with some evolution deniers is that they basically have a belief that requires their God to be a greatest deceiver of all time.

to which you replied:

Nothing about YEC etc. My responce was...

Too bad I stated this:

argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true

OOPS. To which you are now pretending you never said that.

You can apologize any time now.

Well more personal attacks. Have you no argument at all?

See above. You screwed up. Apologize.
 
Because it does not recognize macro evolution as valid. The majority of Theistic evolutionists do not recognize it. Who do you think originally coined the phrase?

Care to prove this point?

I have already shown using your posts this is not true.

Oh the contrary. You did no such thing.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ientists-and-religious-21.html#post1059328591

4th paragraph from the bottom. Do you see "literal" in what you quoted from me?

Oops.

I said "in the quote I responded to" which I have posted again above.

Which is amusing as you keep posting something you say contains no references to Literal Creationism despite containing the line "flood and Genesis was literally true."

Oops again.

What is stupid is you brought it in as I did not respond to that. I posted it above...

Well you keep saying I made no reference to YEC. Despite quoting me doing so. So apparently quoting me saying "flood and Genesis was literally true" means I actually was talking about theistic evolution.

So it's not stupid at all.
 
Typical insults and no substance.

I provided all the "substance" there is to be had on this matter. There is science, and then there are subcultures who depend on conservative sabotage of education to propagate lies, mythologies, and magical thinking. No "debate" is possible with people who reject the very concept of empirical reasoning. If you want to know science, it's all there in the open for you to learn if you take the time. In lieu of that commitment, honesty, and humility, no one can help you. Anyone who thinks they can know the world by reading Sumerian myths does not have the patience or intellectual exposure to deal with reality, or the logical tools to offer a substantive argument with scientific reasoning.
 
Last edited:
I provided all the "substance" there is to be had on this matter. There is science, and then there are subcultures who depend on conservative sabotage of education to propagate lies, mythologies, and magical thinking. No "debate" is possible with people who reject the very concept of empirical reasoning. If you want to know science, it's all there in the open for you to learn if you take the time. In lieu of that commitment, honesty, and humility, no one can help you. Anyone who thinks they can know the world by reading Sumerian myths does not have the patience or intellectual exposure to deal with reality, or the logical tools to offer a substantive argument with scientific reasoning.

Partisan bigotry.

End of story.
 
You mean the posts I re-quoted showing me saying "literal" that you are now pretending don't exist despite quoting them yourself? Good job on that btw.




Because you are trying to apply the localized flood story to my literal flood argument. It's apples to oranges. TE doesn't believe in a global, literal flood. hence why I'm starting to believe you think YEC = Theistic evolution. You keep applying theistic arguments to YEC as proof I talked about theistic despite me stating literal.



See above. Less fail next post. Thanks.



And 6 minutes later you responded to my first post. Which explicitly discussed Literal Creationism. Which you have gone on record saying contains no references to YEC.

Still waiting for you to admit you screwed that one up.



See the post above that one. Post 100, the one you are now pretending doesn't exist because it blows your entire argument out of the water. Furthermore, I referenced Dr. Snelling who is a literal creationist, posting articles for Answers in Genesis that denies evolution entirely and pushes a YEC only view. Do you damn research next time. Seriously.

Just admit you are wrong and we can move on.



Your inability to figure out despite the blatant explicit discussion of YEC is not my fault.

Let's see. Outright stating literal creationism doesn't mean literal to you. Discussing a literal creationist by NAME doesn't mean literal to you. If you cannot get the hint with me STATING literal, that's not my fault.

Thus, why I stated you may have a reading comprehension problem. If so, I apologize for being a prick to you.



Okay. I am sorry for picking on someone who has a significant mental disability that reduces his ability to comprehended written English.

Literal to you apparently means not literal. :2wave:



How did I lie?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ientists-and-religious-21.html#post1059328591

You quoted me saying this:



to which you replied:



Too bad I stated this:



OOPS. To which you are now pretending you never said that.

You can apologize any time now.



See above. You screwed up. Apologize.

No I did not. You just don't understand what I was responding to. Huge difference. You have no clue because you are obsessed with your inaccurate definition.

Then you go on about something I did not respond to and even highlighted in my original post what I directly responded to.

Your answers look stupid not because they are wrong, but they have nothing at all to do with my initial responses.
 
Well, I would like to point out Darwin himself recognized a scientific alternative to a common ancestor in his book, On the Origin of Species, pages 16-17:

"When we attempt to estimate the amount of structural difference between the domestic races of the same species, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they have descended from one or several parent-species. This point, if it could be cleared up, would be interesting; if, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind so truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many very closely allied and natural species—for instance, of the many foxes—inhabiting different quarters of the world. I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that all our dogs have descended from any one wild species; but, in the case of some other domestic races, there is presumptive, or even strong, evidence in favour of this view."

In other words, no, there is plenty of reasonable basis according to Darwin himself for divide between scientists over evolution, and the alternative theory of parent species a perfectly reasonable possibility to a common ancestor. Alfred Russell Wallace for example was the co-discoverer of evolution and was blackballed by the scientific community for his support of spiritualism, including belief that a spiritual creator was responsible for the inbreathing of life into human beings. While he believed in psychics/mediums and was not necessarily a Christian, it's been posited he is something of a missing link between evolutionists and the intelligent design crowd.
 
Well, I would like to point out Darwin himself recognized a scientific alternative to a common ancestor in his book, On the Origin of Species, pages 16-17:

"When we attempt to estimate the amount of structural difference between the domestic races of the same species, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they have descended from one or several parent-species. This point, if it could be cleared up, would be interesting; if, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind so truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many very closely allied and natural species—for instance, of the many foxes—inhabiting different quarters of the world. I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that all our dogs have descended from any one wild species; but, in the case of some other domestic races, there is presumptive, or even strong, evidence in favour of this view."

In other words, no, there is plenty of reasonable basis according to Darwin himself for divide between scientists over evolution, and the alternative theory of parent species a perfectly reasonable possibility to a common ancestor. Alfred Russell Wallace for example was the co-discoverer of evolution and was blackballed by the scientific community for his support of spiritualism, including belief that a spiritual creator was responsible for the inbreathing of life into human beings. While he believed in psychics/mediums and was not necessarily a Christian, it's been posited he is something of a missing link between evolutionists and the intelligent design crowd.

Modern evolutionary theory =/= darwin evolutionary theory
 
Modern evolutionary theory =/= darwin evolutionary theory

What do you mean by this? Merely that changes have occurred? Darwin was correct in many of his analyses of his theory in the book, that the concerns are a lack of transitional forms, and sterility caused by interspeciary breeding - which do not occur in parent species, or microevolution, as some have called it.

Furthermore, as someone who has followed the news over the past decade, I'm well aware of how drastically the theory of evolution has been weakening, e.g. the discoveries Homo Erectus and Habilis co-existed (meaning they didn't evolve from each other), dating problems when Sahelanthropus and Orrorin Tungenesis were discovered to have lived too early, that Arthipidecus Ramidus (including the famed 'Lucy') walked upright and thus may be another 'offshoot', and that Homo Floresiensis, 'Hobbit Man', was not a missing link but yet another offshoot.

As a result of these, scientists have been recently acknowledging the 'tree' is now a 'messy bush' with branches going everywhere, per Newsweek and the New York Times.
 
What do you mean by this? Merely that changes have occurred? Darwin was correct in many of his analyses of his theory in the book, that the concerns are a lack of transitional forms, and sterility caused by interspeciary breeding - which do not occur in parent species, or microevolution, as some have called it.

Furthermore, as someone who has followed the news over the past decade, I'm well aware of how drastically the theory of evolution has been weakening, e.g. the discoveries Homo Erectus and Habilis co-existed (meaning they didn't evolve from each other), dating problems when Sahelanthropus and Orrorin Tungenesis were discovered to have lived too early, that Arthipidecus Ramidus (including the famed 'Lucy') walked upright and thus may be another 'offshoot', and that Homo Floresiensis, 'Hobbit Man', was not a missing link but yet another offshoot.

As a result of these, scientists have been recently acknowledging the 'tree' is now a 'messy bush' with branches going everywhere, per Newsweek and the New York Times.

My point was that many of the issues described by Darwin in his book have been addressed by modern evolutionary theory.
Evolution is not stagnant field. It is being revised every day as new research comes up - we cannot look at the book written by the founder of the original theory as proof of anything.
I don't see the things you posted as weakening the scientific theory, merely as editing and updating it.

If they weren't looking to improve it, that would mean it is complete, finished and perfect. And it clearly is not.
 
My point was that many of the issues described by Darwin in his book have been addressed by modern evolutionary theory.
Evolution is not stagnant field. It is being revised every day as new research comes up - we cannot look at the book written by the founder of the original theory as proof of anything.
I don't see the things you posted as weakening the scientific theory, merely as editing and updating it.

If they weren't looking to improve it, that would mean it is complete, finished and perfect. And it clearly is not.

It is being revised - yet never with considering the alternative of parent species Darwin himself recognized over a century ago. Why is that? Perhaps because it's only being revised according to the worldviews of evolutionists which reject any theory that could fit a Biblical worldview.

For example, the theory of Uniformitarianism, that everything occurs due to steady, natural processes apart from God, was actually developed by Lyell in seeking an alternative to Catastrophism, since his mentor was using it to support the concept of a Biblical flood. As Berkeley University notes,

"Catastrophism," as this school of thought came to be known, was attacked in 1830 by a British lawyer-turned-geologist named Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Lyell started his career studying under the catastrophist William Buckland at Oxford. But Lyell became disenchanted with Buckland when Buckland tried to link catastrophism to the Bible, looking for evidence that the most recent catastrophe had actually been Noah's flood. Lyell wanted to find a way to make geology a true science of its own, built on observation and not susceptible to wild speculations or dependent on the supernatural.

For inspiration, Lyell turned to the fifty-year-old ideas of a Scottish farmer named James Hutton. In the 1790s, Hutton had argued that the Earth was transformed not by unimaginable catastrophes but by imperceptibly slow changes, many of which we can see around us today. Rain erodes mountains, while molten rock pushes up to create new ones. The eroded sediments form into layers of rock, which can later be lifted above sea level, tilted by the force of the uprising rock, and eroded away again. These changes are tiny, but with enough time they could produce vast changes. Hutton therefore argued that the Earth was vastly old — a sort of perpetual-motion machine passing through regular cycles of destruction and rebuilding that made the planet suitable for mankind.
...
Lyell had an equally profound effect on our understanding of life's history. He influenced Darwin so deeply that Darwin envisioned evolution as a sort of biological uniformitarianism. Evolution took place from one generation to the next before our very eyes, he argued, but it worked too slowly for us to perceive.

My point is that they are seeking alternatives only that mesh with an atheistic worldview, and going on the assumption that the Bible is wrong and God does not exist, actively seeking any alternatives that provide basis for this belief. Yes, they are revising their beliefs, but only within such a framework.

The scientific method serves well for objective evaluation of a theory, but it does not preclude bias in choosing a theory.

To evidence this, I again ask why, after a century, have we not seriously looked into what Darwin back then recognized was a viable alternative to a common ancestor, parent species? His own book stated "presumptive, or even strong evidence" for such an alternative, yet all this time later there is a dearth of research on the leading alternative theory proposed by Darwin.

Now, that does not make sense if they are revising their theory with all possible alternatives in mind, only if they are specifically seeking only those which assume a common ancestor to deny as Charles Lyell once did, all theories compatible with a Biblical worldview.
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, as someone who has followed the news over the past decade, I'm well aware of how drastically the theory of evolution has been weakening, e.g. the discoveries Homo Erectus and Habilis co-existed (meaning they didn't evolve from each other),

You are correct, it is commonly believed now that they did not evolve one from the other but branched off from a common ancestor. THis is not a weakening in the theory of evolution as evolution still absolutely accounts for how they are believed to rise.

dating problems when Sahelanthropus and Orrorin Tungenesis were discovered to have lived too early,

Earlier than originally believed is not the same thing as "too early". The theory of evolution still can account for primate evolution. Also note that the dating is an estimate and the accuracy of it is still not known for sure. Again, in now way does this weaken or invalidate evolution.

that Arthipidecus Ramidus (including the famed 'Lucy') walked upright and thus may be another 'offshoot',

You seem to confuse learning more about how evolution works in one genus with weakening evolution. This, like the previous examples in no way disprove or weaken evolutionary theory They are in fact examples of us learning more about evolution and refining our knowledge of evolution.

and that Homo Floresiensis, 'Hobbit Man', was not a missing link but yet another offshoot.

No one really postulated Homo Floresiensis as a missing link seriously. It also once again in no way weakens the theory of evolution. Evolution can and does account for the possibility of Homo Floresiensis.

As a result of these, scientists have been recently acknowledging the 'tree' is now a 'messy bush' with branches going everywhere, per Newsweek and the New York Times.

Learning more about the evolution of one genus in no way is a weakening of evolutionary theory. Quite the opposite in fact. This is why I say that the debate is among those who are educated on the subject, and those who are ignorant.
 
I don't know Red. I know I am biased but I did major in anthropology in college which included allot of archeology. I don't know who it was in this thread that said the fossil record provides even better evidence for evolution but I think it is the exact opposite. I think microbiology actually provides more evidence with the study of DNA being the real kicker.

The fossil record is a dead end for evolution, or that is how it appeared to me during study.
 
Last edited:
You are correct, it is commonly believed now that they did not evolve one from the other but branched off from a common ancestor. THis is not a weakening in the theory of evolution as evolution still absolutely accounts for how they are believed to rise.

Earlier than originally believed is not the same thing as "too early". The theory of evolution still can account for primate evolution. Also note that the dating is an estimate and the accuracy of it is still not known for sure. Again, in now way does this weaken or invalidate evolution.

You seem to confuse learning more about how evolution works in one genus with weakening evolution. This, like the previous examples in no way disprove or weaken evolutionary theory They are in fact examples of us learning more about evolution and refining our knowledge of evolution.

No one really postulated Homo Floresiensis as a missing link seriously. It also once again in no way weakens the theory of evolution. Evolution can and does account for the possibility of Homo Floresiensis.

Learning more about the evolution of one genus in no way is a weakening of evolutionary theory. Quite the opposite in fact. This is why I say that the debate is among those who are educated on the subject, and those who are ignorant.

Well, the Newsweek and New York Times articles cited the incidences as linked in the conclusion the human evolutionary tree was now appearing more a 'bush'. Such a statement at the time was evidence of just how monumental such findings were in changing scientific thought. I mainly refer to them in my statement it was weakening the theory of evolution, as the deadends evolution has been forced to acknowledge, to go with previous ones like Neanderthal, are drawing a picture of human evolution far different than the one which has been taught in science textbooks.

My interest is not in trying to invalidate the theory of evolution or a common ancestor, only to reveal there is some level of growing doubt, and that the theory of parent species, where evolution within species but not between them occurs, is a reasonable theory, and not that of a brainwashed, ignorant buffoon as many of the evolutionist crowd like to condescendingly point out. My interest is not in denying evolution is impossible, which to me would seem akin to disproving a negative, merely to lay claim to a plausible alternative posited by Darwin himself as a reasonable possibility.

And I know LiveScience did report at the time that Homo Floresiensis was a missing link. They heralded it with a number of articles as such, and then deleted the articles afterward. I still have the links to a number of them with the 404 missing tags. Some would say they are a sloppy science reporting website, and I'm inclined to agree, so it's possible their heralding of it was exclusive to them and not part of a broader pattern.
 
I don't know Red. I know I am biased but I did major in anthropology in college which included allot of archeology. I don't know who it was in this thread that said the fossil record provides even better evidence for evolution but I think it is the exact opposite. I think microbiology actually provides more evidence with the study of DNA being the real kicker.

The fossil record is a dead end for evolution, or that is how it appeared to me during study.

It's not a dead end, it's just very small and paints an incomplete picture from what I can tell.

@Jzye
These things arising don't reveal any growing doubt, at least not amongst the evolutionary biologists who study these things. If anything, it reflects good science.
 
This is another article they didn't delete. They deleted this article, and they've since restored this article as well as this one, although whether they're the same ones I'm not sure. For some time those 2 were deleted, so I'm surprised to see they've put the pages back up once more.
 
It's not a dead end, it's just very small and paints an incomplete picture from what I can tell.

@Jzye
These things arising don't reveal any growing doubt, at least not amongst the evolutionary biologists who study these things. If anything, it reflects good science.

While I would say there is a growing segment of scientists who identify with the I.D. or creationist crowd, and while I suspect it to be in part based on the recent discoveries I mentioned, they are still certainly in the minority. At the same time though, I don't believe it's become common knowledge yet that Darwin identified a plausible alternative, as I have never seen this mentioned on any creationist or I.D. site before - I found it myself by simply reading his book. I like to read source material like senate transcripts and legislation, and check for myself, doing my own research. Once that changes, I expect even more scientists could begin seriously questioning the alternative Darwin provided.
 
What I know about God creationism or evolution is unimportant.
 
What I know about God creationism or evolution is unimportant.

Yes, surely too unimportant to waste time even mentioning such a fact on a lowly forum thread like this one. :)
 
Last edited:
No I did not. You just don't understand what I was responding to. Huge difference.

So you deny that you said that this quote:

But we cannot ignore the fact that some religious people are ignorant And some are truly retarded. This one creationist I met (a few others tangled with him) argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true. When confronted with the issue of the geological record not sorting species by mass and shape, he basically argued that water doesn't sort by mass and shape. Except that you can test this. In your sink. A 5 lb dinosaur should end up on average, at a higher strata then a woolly mammoth. They don't. Ever. The problem with some evolution deniers is that they basically have a belief that requires their God to be a greatest deceiver of all time.

made absolutely no mention at all of literal creationism?

Even after you said about that very quote?

Nothing about YEC etc.

You have no clue because you are obsessed with your inaccurate definition.

Cute. You can't admit you're wrong.

Then you go on about something I did not respond to and even highlighted in my original post what I directly responded to.

I guess citing you saying my quote about literal creationism has no mention of literal creationism even when I directly talk about literal creationism means I never proved you wrong?

Your answers look stupid not because they are wrong, but they have nothing at all to do with my initial responses.

Got it. You can't admit you are wrong. Even when your own words show you to be a liar.
 
I consider it more a debate between the educated and the ignorant.

So how'd you vote? The "ignorant" group would include many Christians, right? lol
 
Back
Top Bottom