:roflmao: Well I know you're no better than an ape. But those of us who can think beyond the capacity of animal instincts are part of the human race. So I won't put most of you in the latter category as your posts demonstrate.
Caricos theories of evolution and other such stuff
- Thread starter Carico
- Start date
- Status
:roflmao: Well I know you're no better than an ape. But those of us who can think beyond the capacity of animal instincts are part of the human race. So I won't put most of you in the latter category as your posts demonstrate.
Then you'll never find out what animals breed since you live in the twilight zone where fictitious animals turn into humans.
But I know that's where you want to stay, so I can see why you don't want to get educated on the birds and the bees. 
Apes can also think beyond the capacity of their animal instincts. They can learn sign language and teach their culture to their children. They make tools, they hold grudges, they have wars, they are way more like humans than we like to admit.
Is everyone having fun arguing with the idiot trolls?
Then that means that scales are part of the genetic code of chickens. but since we still haven't seen an ape breed a baby human, then apes don't carry human DNA which even children know.
Then that means that scales are part of the genetic code of chickens. but since we still haven't seen an ape breed a baby human, then apes don't carry human DNA which even children know.
Children also know that Santa and the Tooth Fairy are real.
Children also know that Santa and the Tooth Fairy are real.
So then you don't know that apes don't breed baby humans. Is that correct? :roflmao: Like I said, the ignorance of basic biology and reality among evolutionists is mind-boggling.
So then you don't know that apes don't breed baby humans. Is that correct? :roflmao: Like I said, the ignorance of basic biology and reality among evolutionists is mind-boggling.
Depending on your definition of ape: I know they did.
It's not hard to make up stories about what happened before there were witnesses. Any child can do that. But even children make up stories that are more realistic than apes turning into people.
Then why did they stop once recorded history began? :shrug: Pretty convenient, isn't it? I guess they must have suddenly gotten tired about that time. It makes one wonder, though, why the first-speaking man didn't pass along accounts of his ape ancestors. Maybe he was rebelling against his parents. Or better yet, maybe the ears of his offspring just got lost in the genes and were found again, thousands of years later. You guys are so funny.
Yes it convenient recorded history is only 6 thousand years old. In such time we have manage to record only a handful of speciation events.
I guess they must have suddenly gotten tired about that time. It makes one wonder, though, why the first-speaking man didn't pass along accounts of his ape ancestors. Maybe he was rebelling against his parents. Or better yet, maybe the ears of his offspring just got lost in the genes and were found again, thousands of years later. You guys are so funny.
Well there is plenty of debate when man spoke, Homo erectus's hyiod bone suggest they could not produce the same range of sounds modern humans can, but Homo neanderthalensis did have a modern humans hyiod bone and also fully functional Foxp2 gene, which means the Homo neanderthalensis should have been capable of full human speak context and sound, but genetic evidence also suggest Homo neanderthalensis was not a direct ancestor to homo sapains which means an ancestor between Homo erectus and the point of divergence between Homo neanderthalensis must have developed a fully function Foxp2, but the question then comes what kind of language were they capable of with their more limited intellect, perhaps language it self was evolutionary.
Again, it's not hard to make up fictitious animals and write stories about what they ate, how they lived and how they talked. Tolken did an excellent job of that in "Lord of the Rings." He used his powers of deduction (which is called evidence in science) to create colorful creatures and a whole fantasy world of creatures based on his powers of deduction. So do his powers of deduction make his story true? of course not!
All fiction writers try to make their stories believable. In fact, if they don't dot every i, the audience drops off. Nevertheless, their stories are still fiction. But when people can't see the difference between fact and fantasy, they become delusional and begin to believe these fictional creations.
And that's why it's imperative that people question the methods of scientists instead of seeing them as infallible gods who always use the scientific process when trying to use their theories. But I have yet to see one person here other than myself who has the objectivity and good contact with reality to question their methods. Not one. That means that you are nothing but unthinking robots who are being brainwashed by people with letters after their names. You have adopted the very thing that you criticize Christians for, blind faith. Pretty sad.
Last edited:
Again, it's not hard to make up fictitious animals and write stories about what they ate, how they lived and how they talked. Tolken did an excellent job of that in "Lord of the Rings." He used his powers of deduction (which is called evidence in science) to create colorful creatures and a whole fantasy world of creatures based on his powers of deduction. So do his powers of deduction make his story true? of course not!
All fiction writers try to make their stories believable. In fact, if they don't dot every i, the audience drops off. Nevertheless, their stories are still fiction. But when people can't see the difference between fact and fantasy, they become delusional and begin to believe these fictional creations.
And that's why it's imperative that people question the methods of scientists instead of seeing them as infallible gods who always use the scientific process when trying to use their theories. But I have yet to see one person here other than myself who has the objectivity and good contact with reality to question their methods. Not one. That means that you are nothing but unthinking robots who are being brainwashed by people with letters after their names. You have adopted the very thing that you criticize Christians for, blind faith. Pretty sad.
Fictional? So there bones are imaginary? Their DNA samples imaginary?
Not only are those bones not imaginary, they could be the bones of many different animals and humans washed up together in the same basin. There's no way to prove those skulls and bones all came from th same body. Even forensic scientists can't tell if bones they find all came from the same body without the DNA to prove it because their speculations would be laughed out of court. So once again, if you never question the methods of scientists, you become an unthinking robot who blindly follows anything they say. And that you have.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Any individual who sees scientists as infallible gods needs a good boot up the arse.
Only an individual who has received a third rate education, or who is intellectually challenged, or who has serious personality defects could ever see scientists as infallible gods.
If you have had even a rudimentary science education you would be aware that all scientific results are provisional and subject to amendment in the light of new information. In science we can disprove things, we can never prove them. Indeed many scientists adhere to Karl Popper's view that if a hypothesis is such that it cannot be disproved then it is not science.
On the other hand, once a hypothesis has been validated by several observations and a number of independent scientists it will be established as a theory. After time, with many more observations corroborating the theory, with no falsification occuring, the theory will become so well established that to a layman it would have to be considered as fact.
Indeed, to all intents and purposes it is fact and only a pedant would object to calling it such. This is the state of evolution theory today. Evolution is a fact. True, there are some aspects of the mechanism that require refinement and perhaps even wholesale overhaul, but short of an alien spacecraft landing on the Pope, and its occupants declaring they intelligently designed humans, then the fact of evolution will remain.
Why would you object to scientists using the scientific process? Their theories have been developed with the scinetific method. This is generally thought to be preferable to throwing dice, or disembowelling chickens. Perhaps you were unaware of this.
Please. I am alert and ready to listen. Which aspect of the scientific method do you question? Is it careful objective observation? Is it the gathering of large volumes of data? Is it the insistence that hypothesis must be tested by experiment? Is it the requirement that the work of one scientist be duplicated by others? I am interested which of these you view as being objectionable, or of suspect value.
I have letters after my name. I got them by demonstrating to some pretty hard characters that I was not the type to be brainwashed. You might benefit from a similar educational experience.
I don't criticise Christians.You have adopted the very thing that you criticize Christians for, blind faith. Pretty sad.
I know plenty of Christians who have faith, but it is not blind.
I know plenty of Christians who believe in evolution, based on the evidence and in Christianity based on their spiritual experience and perception.
Any sadness would revolve around your inability to understand this.
Not only are those bones not imaginary, they could be the bones of many different animals and humans washed up together in the same basin. There's no way to prove those skulls and bones all came from th same body. Even forensic scientists can't tell if bones they find all came from the same body without the DNA to prove it because their speculations would be laughed out of court. So once again, if you never question the methods of scientists, you become an unthinking robot who blindly follows anything they say. And that you have.
But the bones are different from that of any known animals, how can any combination of bones make an intact proto-human skull?
because truth can only be found in reality, not in the imaginations of men.
Such as the men that made up the Bible stories.
So then you don't know that apes don't breed baby humans. Is that correct? :roflmao: Like I said, the ignorance of basic biology and reality among evolutionists is mind-boggling.
What is the definition of an ape? What is the definition of a human?
What the fuck are you doing stinking up Sciforums with your nonesense? Stick to the religion section if you insist on posting here.
If you have to look up a definition of human and ape, then you prove my point that you have no clue what the difference is between them. And since you think it's nonsense that each animal breeds its own kind then I can see why you can't distinguish between fact and fiction. But since you don't know, here's what the Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus defines as a human; "Of or characteristic of people as opposed to God or animals or machines."
Here is their definition of an animal: "A living organism which feeds on organic matter, one with specialized sense organisms and a nervous system, and able to respond rapidly to stimuli. Such an organism other than a human being." So since you don't know the difference between humans and animals, then I can see why you think my posts are nonsense.
So I suggest you visit a zoo sometime, or better yet, visit the children's department of your local library and look at picture books of animals and humans. Then you can also find out what each of them breeds.
And until you do so, you aren't qualified to talk about basic biology. The ignorance among evolutionists is astounding. But then if they weren't ignorant, they could adopt such an impossible and ridiculous theory.
Last edited:
- Status