• 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!

Mitochondrial Eve

TheGoverness said:
Why do you keep on changing the subject?
Click to expand...
Showing that science, lately, leans as heavily on prejudice as it does facts. This propensity of facts as you refer to them is a mixture of facts and prejudice in many areas of science.
 
cabse5 said:
Showing that science, lately, leans as heavily on prejudice as it does facts. This propensity of facts as you refer to them is a mixture of facts and prejudice in many areas of science.
Click to expand...
None of this is based on prejudice.

Science is not based on prejudice in the slightest.

The Evolutionary Theory relies entirely on documented evidence and scientific research evolutionary scientists have gathered and conducted for decades.

You may think science holds some form of prejudice because they haven't come to the conclusions that you want them to, but unfortunately for you, science does not operate on confirmation bias.
 
cabse5 said:
Showing that science, lately, leans as heavily on prejudice as it does facts. This propensity of facts as you refer to them is a mixture of facts and prejudice in many areas of science.
Click to expand...

Sorry dude. Earth's more than 6000 years old. No prejudice there, just fact.
 
TheGoverness said:
None of this is based on prejudice.

Science is not based on prejudice in the slightest.

The Evolutionary Theory relies entirely on documented evidence and scientific research evolutionary scientists have gathered and conducted for decades.

You may think science holds some form prejudice because they haven't come to the conclusions that you want them to, but unfortunately for you, science does not operate on confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
Stop with the strawman argument.
 
The argument for a 6000 year old earth falls apart when we consider sights like,
Göbekli Tepe, which has been been dated to about 12,000 years ago.
Anyone who has faith in God, whichever name/s used, should understand that
an omnipotent deity, may not relate to our artificial construct called time,
in the same manor that we perceive time.
 
longview said:
The argument for a 6000 year old earth falls apart when we consider sights like,
Göbekli Tepe, which has been been dated to about 12,000 years ago.
Anyone who has faith in God, whichever name/s used, should understand that
an omnipotent deity, may not relate to our artificial construct called time,
in the same manor that we perceive time.
Click to expand...

I think a core characteristic of a zealot is forgetting the human part of the equation. It's God is Infallible -> Bible is God's Word -> Bible is infallible, skipping the part where a human being is reading the book and is quite capable of getting things wrong.
 
cabse5 said:
Let's ask him. Risky, do you hate religion?
Click to expand...

No. I don't hate anything. I don't hate religion. However the misguided application of religion is often humorous and, unfortunately, sometimes tragic.
 
Ntharotep said:
Just another tid bit to help this along some, instead of trying to teach evolutionary theories myself:
The Common Ancestor and Why we Don't See Them Today
Click to expand...
From going through all that to find what Holliday finally says about missing links:

"Re: ". . .being that hardly any conclusive "missing-links" have been found."

First, tell me what you are looking for in a "missing link". Be specific. Tell me about your understanding of how fossil evidence forms and what the challenges are for their formation. After that, then we can get into "missing links". But suffice it to say that even without that specific evidence (which we have) we'd still have sufficient evidence elsewhere for Evolution by Natural Selection.

But, if you are a proof-driven individual. Talk to me about the evidence for your particular religious belief. Whatever it is -- since science matters so much -- let's discuss the evidence for creation by a deity. Is there any? Let's compare the evidence for your specific religion and compare it with the evidence for Evolution. We'll stack them up, side-by-side. "

The first, as well as the second, completely dodge the question. He ends up saying in the first, " But suffice it to say that even without that specific evidence (which we have)"... and yet he somehow fails to ever go on to show that he has it, only states that he has it. Natural selection does seemingly show that there is distinct and ongoing change within the species, it does not prove that there was a joining or separation from the two, now or always, these two different creatures, humans and chimps. So, he conveniently slips out of answering the missing link question.

The second answer is only a question itself, a challenge to give evidence under-girding a religious belief. That is not the expectation, as religious belief is founded on faith... as opposed to science where there is a higher bar, much higher, to be hurdled as science, unless it is actually itself a religion, being sometimes accepteded by its true adherents based on nothing but blind faith, just as the religious believers, but science should be observable, adequately reproducible. None of that seemingly applies here.
 
cabse5 said:
Monkeys... And before? And before? And before and before and before and before? No more and before? Dude, did you misplace your car?

And where is your proof?
Click to expand...

2 things:

1. As someone said earlier. Science doesn't prove things right. The nature of knowledge and science is that it can only prove something wrong. When a phenomena arises, science takes its best guess to explain the phenomena. Some of those guesses are so good, and have so much predictive power (an important part of science) that they're generally taken to be true. Such is the case with evolution. See: Predictions made by theory of evolution. Make sure you read the 2 lines at the very bottom of the page.

2. The nature of evidence/observation. You didn't allude specifically to this but I want to point it out anyway. I hear a lot of people say that you can't see evidence of evolution because you can't see it with your own eyes. Or that it happens in the past so we can't know for sure it happened, or it happens on a timescale we can't see. That's codswallop. Cause and effect. We can know something to be true a million years ago without being there as much as we can know something to be true if we watch it directly. All 'seeing something with your eyes' is detecting photons that bounce of the object as they hit your retina. In fact, given that it takes time for the light to reach you, when you 'see something happen directly' you watch it happen in the past. Methods for looking back millions of years are no different in principle. It's simple cause and effect. When we have radioactive isotopes where we know their half lives we can calculate the age of a fossil embedded in rock just as well as if we saw it with our own eyes. When we see changes in the fossil record that we can date, that is direct evidence of evolution.

Seeing something with our own eyes is no more reliable than carbon dating or the fossil record, detecting something with isotopes is no less direct than detecting it with photons, it's just harder to understand so people are scared of it.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Monkeys... And before? And before? And before and before and before and before? No more and before? Dude, did you misplace your car?

And where is your proof?
Click to expand...

Wait, do you want to go all the way back to single-celled organisms?
 
Deuce said:
Wait, do you want to go all the way back to single-celled organisms?
Click to expand...

Yes, so that when he asks "and before that?" again he can get the "We haven't established that yet" response he's been searching for so he can finally say "Aha! God!"
 
Deuce said:
Wait, do you want to go all the way back to single-celled organisms?
Click to expand...
Do you believe in a creationist's theory? No? Then yes. You could even do what some 'scientists' have already done by doctoring data to fit their hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
What about Mitochondrial Lilith?
 
cabse5 said:
Do you believe in a creationist's theory? No? Then yes. You could even do what some 'scientists' have already done by doctoring data to fit their hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware that creation "scientists" doctor data every day.
 
cabse5 said:
Hominids. What were ancestors of hominids?
Click to expand...

120809alf1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom