The debating skills of evolutionists
- Thread starter Carico
- Start date
The scientific creationist believes that good science is science that is in accordance with facts as presented in the bible.
Being incredibly literal minded they cannot understand that some parts of the Bible are myths, and socially inspired versions of history.
The bible was written by many different people, who had differing views.
It can be true and a guidance for people in a way that science can not.
But it isn't science.
It doesn't stand up as science, and in presenting it as science you are doing a disservice to religion, because when people dismiss the science you are presenting, they will dismiss the guidance, which has served people for millennia, as baloney too.
But why listen to me?
Mock on Mock on Voltaire Rousseau
Mock on Mock on! tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind
And the wind blows it back again
William Blake
Being incredibly literal minded they cannot understand that some parts of the Bible are myths, and socially inspired versions of history.
The bible was written by many different people, who had differing views.
It can be true and a guidance for people in a way that science can not.
But it isn't science.
It doesn't stand up as science, and in presenting it as science you are doing a disservice to religion, because when people dismiss the science you are presenting, they will dismiss the guidance, which has served people for millennia, as baloney too.
But why listen to me?
Mock on Mock on Voltaire Rousseau
Mock on Mock on! tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind
And the wind blows it back again
William Blake
If it's to me, then judging by the responses I get when I say that humans breed humans and apes breed apes, evolutionists don't know that's true. So by your reasoning, they should indeed shut up.
You have said multiple times things such as, "Why have we never seen an ape give birth to a person then?". Implying that the theory of evolution suggests such things happen.
It doesn't. If you took maybe ten minutes to learn the basics you would realise this.
But I doubt that will happen any time soon.
No, I've said, "why haven't we seen an ape give birth to human descendants." Everyone knows that evolution doesn't endorse the common ancestor giving birth to a fully formed human. A descendant is not just a first generation offspring.
It also includes offspring thousands of generations later. So either you don't know what the word "descendant" means or you obviously have no understanding of the subject matter. So again, by your reasoning, people who don't understand the subject matter and/or basic word vocabulary should indeed shut up. But if you want to get technical, until we've seen that it's possible for an ape or ape ancestors or anything resembling an ape or his ancestors to breed a human being, then it's pure fantasy to speculate that a human could come out of an ape whether it took a gazillion years or 9 months.
Bells
Staff member
How could an ape of today, or its descendants give birth to a human being? We diverged from the apes. We shared a common ancestor at one point in time, but we have since gone down one branch of the evolution tree while apes went down another branch. But because of this common ancestor, we share a lot of common characteristics:
That site is a very useful educational tool for a beginners understanding of evolution. It gives a broad overview of the subject itself. I would suggest you read it.
Have you ever played the Chinese whisper game? You know where one person whispers a sentence to someone and that person then whispers what he/she has heard to another person, and so on. By the time we get to the last person, the sentence is something completely different.
Hence why the stories passed down in the Bible can never be trusted.
Do you know how we have managed to piece together the human history? Through the discovery of remains. Those remains have allowed us to glimpse into the past. We can trace our origins through those remains. So for evolutionists, we don't need a Chinese whisper. We can see it with our own eyes.. we can trace it ourselves.
We know why humans cannot breed apes and why apes cannot breed humans. We are two very distinct and different species who happen to have diverged millions of years ago from a common ancestor. So no, you won't read the newspaper tomorrow and see that a Chimpanzee has given birth to a human being, or vice versa.
Carico: This is all made-up. No one in history has passed along accounts of these fictitious creatures so they're purely out of the imaginations of scientists. An accepted theory is not a proven theory. It can also be a myth as this theory proves.
Carico, this is the modern day. We no longer rely on personal verbal communication to pass ideas. Take for example, you're usage of this group to "talk" to others. There is no proof that you exist. None. How do we know that you aren't some bot responding to us?
Logic. We can tell by the details of what you say and the order in which you arrange those details, that you are almost certainly a real person responding via the Internet to other real people by using your keyboard to communicate.
This is no different than accepting the scientific testing that proves certain facts to be true. The bones of these creatures are real. The magnification of them is real. The comparative studies of the magnified images are real. The people who have studied their entire lives to interpret this information, are real.
The FACTS of the bones, the data collected as a result of studying them and the information correlated is all real. Your denial of facts doesn't make the facts any less real, it mearly shows you to be stubborn and uninformed.
But since you you don't know why apes can't breed human descendants any more than humans can breed apes as descendants, then of course you don;t know the difference between fast and fantasy.
Do you even think before typing? What you've just said is nonsense. Of course I understand why an ape cannot produce a human offspring. Of course I know why a human cannot produce a simian offspring. Are you completely crazy?
The facts are on my side, the fantasy on yours.
In fact, your story is so much fantasy that you have to make up new tribes of people never before heard of.
Please point out the names of tribes that you're referring to. I made no such claim. If you have to lie to make a point, it's pretty worthless in it's conclusions.
You have to change the descendants of the Jews, and change the timeline of all the peoples in history.
Again, I've done no such thing. I've pointed out that the remains of people have proven beyond doubt that the fictional stories of mankind's spread throughout the world that are made up by you and your fellow creationists are nothing but fantasy, supported by nothing but more fantasy.
So not only are you inventing your own history, your changing the recent history of the past!
Then you'll not mind showing with quotes from me exactly how I've invented my own history. You'll also have no problem showing with quotes how I've changed a single proven part of history. Please leave your religious dogma at the door. It's fantasy. It's unproven and certainly can't ever be proven. Stick to the facts that have been proven and show me how you are correct.
So sorry, but I'll go with the accounts of people who lived in history rather than the new stories of people who lived thousands of years later than they did. Eye-witnesses are much more credible than those who didn't witness events.
You only believe in what you can see with your own eyes or that which others have told you they have seen? Then explain to me how you know that my words are real? How do you know that what your Pastor tells you is real? He didn't see it. He talked to no one who saw it. Your only proof is a substance that someone scratched some words on. It's no more real than Mickey Mouse. The religious writings you credit for truth are no more real than Steven King's last novel. Words, written down. That's all you have. Prove those words portray anything real.
So that's what I base my beliefs on,
As I said above, you base your beliefs on written words of some person or persons you never knew, no one you know ever knew, and you can't prove have any resemblance to truth or facts. You base your beliefs on a bunch of scratches on a surface of some substance. You base your beliefs on the translations of these scratches into modern words. Translations done by someone who has never witnessed the actual spoken language and has never seen or met anyone who speaks or writes in that language as their first and only language.
Your argument is your worst enemy. You prove yourself wrong.
not the wild imaginations of scientists.
Scientists don't use imagination to produce the information they do. They use what is know as "Scientific Method". Look it up. You'll learn something real.
But you've been brainwashed as a child to believe these fictitious creatures really existed
Not at all. I've actually seen the fossils that are in place, right where the animals died. Contrary to your lame evidence, I've actually seen the real remains that prove my points. The existence of these fossils isn't debatable. It's fact. Proven facts. Your denial of them shows the depth of your blindness to reality. Most of my studies were done as an adult. The only brainwashing attempted on me as a child was the same that you succumbed to in it's entirety. Religious fantasy was pushed on me, but I was too intelligent as a child to fall for the lack of logic, the lack of facts and the shear lies that were repeated by one of your parroting creationists.
and it will take you a long time to see why they could not have.
At 56 years old, I sincerely hope I have "a long time" to see things. However, one of the things I won't be seeing is any truth to the fantasy that you're propagating. Everything I learn will undoubtedly reinforce that fact that your "god" fictions are nothing but scare tactics used by uneducated people to control those who are gullible enough to swallow the illogical and totally unprovable lies.
Carico, this is the modern day. We no longer rely on personal verbal communication to pass ideas. Take for example, you're usage of this group to "talk" to others. There is no proof that you exist. None. How do we know that you aren't some bot responding to us?
Logic. We can tell by the details of what you say and the order in which you arrange those details, that you are almost certainly a real person responding via the Internet to other real people by using your keyboard to communicate.
This is no different than accepting the scientific testing that proves certain facts to be true. The bones of these creatures are real. The magnification of them is real. The comparative studies of the magnified images are real. The people who have studied their entire lives to interpret this information, are real.
The FACTS of the bones, the data collected as a result of studying them and the information correlated is all real. Your denial of facts doesn't make the facts any less real, it mearly shows you to be stubborn and uninformed.
But since you you don't know why apes can't breed human descendants any more than humans can breed apes as descendants, then of course you don;t know the difference between fast and fantasy.
Do you even think before typing? What you've just said is nonsense. Of course I understand why an ape cannot produce a human offspring. Of course I know why a human cannot produce a simian offspring. Are you completely crazy?
The facts are on my side, the fantasy on yours.
In fact, your story is so much fantasy that you have to make up new tribes of people never before heard of.
Please point out the names of tribes that you're referring to. I made no such claim. If you have to lie to make a point, it's pretty worthless in it's conclusions.
You have to change the descendants of the Jews, and change the timeline of all the peoples in history.
Again, I've done no such thing. I've pointed out that the remains of people have proven beyond doubt that the fictional stories of mankind's spread throughout the world that are made up by you and your fellow creationists are nothing but fantasy, supported by nothing but more fantasy.
So not only are you inventing your own history, your changing the recent history of the past!
Then you'll not mind showing with quotes from me exactly how I've invented my own history. You'll also have no problem showing with quotes how I've changed a single proven part of history. Please leave your religious dogma at the door. It's fantasy. It's unproven and certainly can't ever be proven. Stick to the facts that have been proven and show me how you are correct.
So sorry, but I'll go with the accounts of people who lived in history rather than the new stories of people who lived thousands of years later than they did. Eye-witnesses are much more credible than those who didn't witness events.
You only believe in what you can see with your own eyes or that which others have told you they have seen? Then explain to me how you know that my words are real? How do you know that what your Pastor tells you is real? He didn't see it. He talked to no one who saw it. Your only proof is a substance that someone scratched some words on. It's no more real than Mickey Mouse. The religious writings you credit for truth are no more real than Steven King's last novel. Words, written down. That's all you have. Prove those words portray anything real.
So that's what I base my beliefs on,
As I said above, you base your beliefs on written words of some person or persons you never knew, no one you know ever knew, and you can't prove have any resemblance to truth or facts. You base your beliefs on a bunch of scratches on a surface of some substance. You base your beliefs on the translations of these scratches into modern words. Translations done by someone who has never witnessed the actual spoken language and has never seen or met anyone who speaks or writes in that language as their first and only language.
Your argument is your worst enemy. You prove yourself wrong.
not the wild imaginations of scientists.
Scientists don't use imagination to produce the information they do. They use what is know as "Scientific Method". Look it up. You'll learn something real.
But you've been brainwashed as a child to believe these fictitious creatures really existed
Not at all. I've actually seen the fossils that are in place, right where the animals died. Contrary to your lame evidence, I've actually seen the real remains that prove my points. The existence of these fossils isn't debatable. It's fact. Proven facts. Your denial of them shows the depth of your blindness to reality. Most of my studies were done as an adult. The only brainwashing attempted on me as a child was the same that you succumbed to in it's entirety. Religious fantasy was pushed on me, but I was too intelligent as a child to fall for the lack of logic, the lack of facts and the shear lies that were repeated by one of your parroting creationists.
and it will take you a long time to see why they could not have.
At 56 years old, I sincerely hope I have "a long time" to see things. However, one of the things I won't be seeing is any truth to the fantasy that you're propagating. Everything I learn will undoubtedly reinforce that fact that your "god" fictions are nothing but scare tactics used by uneducated people to control those who are gullible enough to swallow the illogical and totally unprovable lies.
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
"I am wasting my time. You guys don't know the theory you refute."
at least you acknowledge that we have refuted it Actually, I am pretty familiar with evolution having a bs in biology from Michigan State University and having taught it for 8 years in the public schools and having moderated a debate which I organized with over 1500 in attendance and having debated atheist/theistic/evolutionists now for 2 years on the internet. Yeah, I know evolution pretty well and I find it about as silly as the frog and the prince fairy tale.
at least you acknowledge that we have refuted it
Actually, I am pretty familiar with evolution having a bs in biology from Michigan State University and having taught it for 8 years in the public schools and having moderated a debate which I organized with over 1500 in attendance and having debated atheist/theistic/evolutionists now for 2 years on the internet. Yeah, I know evolution pretty well and I find it about as silly as the frog and the prince fairy tale.This is all made-up. No one in history has passed along accounts of these fictitious creatures so they're purely out of the imaginations of scientists. An accepted theory is not a proven theory. It can also be a myth as this theory proves. But since you you don't know why apes can't breed human descendants any more than humans can breed apes as descendants, then of course you don;t know the difference between fast and fantasy.
In fact, your story is so much fantasy that you have to make up new tribes of people never before heard of. You have to change the descendants of the Jews, and change the timeline of all the peoples in history. So not only are you inventing your own history, your changing the recent history of the past!
How could he have been "brainwashed as a child to believe" this if, as you constantly point out, scientific theories keep changing?
This is a clear contradiction.
Additionally, if the eye witnesses are so important then why do you place so much stock in the new testament which was written years after the actual events?
"I am wasting my time. You guys don't know the theory you refute."
at least you acknowledge that we have refuted it
Yet you taught it for 8 years?
Also I believe the comment about not understanding evolution was directed at Carico.
You taught evolution and you think that evolution is silly?
I'm one step closer to having heard it all.
The frog and the prince tale is not silly, it is a story that contains an important truth.
Most fairy tales do.
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
"The frog and the prince tale is not silly, it is a story that contains an important truth.
Most fairy tales do."
spoken like a true evolutionist The story is really the same thing as evolution, just throw in a few billion years of unobservable past to obscure the facts from a guillable half educated populace and Walla! A scientific theory!
Most fairy tales do."
spoken like a true evolutionist
The story is really the same thing as evolution, just throw in a few billion years of unobservable past to obscure the facts from a guillable half educated populace and Walla! A scientific theory!That's because you've actually studied and taught evolution unlike people here who blindly believe anything scientists tell them. And once one studies evolution, not only does one find it impossible, but hilarious as well.
It's an embarrassment how easy it is for scientists to be deluded and to delude the public simply because they want to play God. But arrogance always clouds judgment.mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
"You taught evolution and you think that evolution is silly?"
it is silly. The only reason it doesn't appear so to many is because of the shear number of people who have been taken in by it. It is nothing but a fairy tale for grown ups, unsupported by the evidence but believed on by gullible brainwashed theists and atheists who have no other alternative if they wish to "appear" intelligent.
it is silly. The only reason it doesn't appear so to many is because of the shear number of people who have been taken in by it. It is nothing but a fairy tale for grown ups, unsupported by the evidence but believed on by gullible brainwashed theists and atheists who have no other alternative if they wish to "appear" intelligent.
Does anybody else think that mynameisDan sounds suspiciously like a sock-puppet of Carico?
"The frog and the prince tale is not silly, it is a story that contains an important truth.
Most fairy tales do."
spoken like a true evolutionist
No, spoken by someone who understands the nature of a fairy Tale.
If you want to understand science, go to a science college.
If you want to understand Biblical teaching, read it and pray, or go to a Pastor.
If you want to understand Fairy tales, look beneath the surface.
They are not just stupid stories.
When you read things, do not simply look at what they say,
consider who wrote them and why.
In every cry of every Man,
In every Infant’s cry of fear,
In every voice, in every ban,
The mind-forg'd manacles I hear.
William Blake
Last edited:
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
whereever I go someone claims I am an alt of someone else. My name is not Carrico, and I have never heard of this guy before Friday. Read my posts carefully and you will soon be able to distinguish the differences between Carrico and myself.
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
"If you want to understand Fairy tales, look beneath the surface.
They are not just stupid stories."
Have we just switched the subject here My reference to evolution as a fairy tale is a reference to the fact the evolution shares unreality with fairy tales. I don't give a crap about the fact that fairy tales have meaning or not. You are a slippery fellow arent you
They are not just stupid stories."
Have we just switched the subject here
My reference to evolution as a fairy tale is a reference to the fact the evolution shares unreality with fairy tales. I don't give a crap about the fact that fairy tales have meaning or not. You are a slippery fellow arent you
No argument then.