Chimps Now to be Considered Humans

National Geographic ^ | 5/19/2003 | kkindt

[Aric2000]

Your logic is questionable at best, and downright demonization at worst.

Too bad that you have no scientific evidence to back up your creationist assertions.

But, that is all a creationist has, faith, compared to Science.

Why do you fight science with religion?

It doesn't work....

[F16Fighter]

"But, that is all a creationist has, faith, compared to Science."

Yes, all hail Darwinist "Science" -- which betrays it's own criteria and basis for "proof" by accepting imprecise, unmathematical, inexact theory as irrefutable gospel truth.

Has your "science" now ironically "evolved" into a faith itself?

[Dataman]

I think our friend has a very limited repertoire. The minute things get a little difficult, out comes the "But, that is all a creationist has, faith, compared to Science."

[Aric2000]

Well then, put your money where your mouth is, Give me one piece of scientifically verifiable evidence that evolution is a false theory.

Just one....

[Aric2000]

384 goes for you too.

Just one piece, just one.....

[Dataman]

Well then, put your money where your mouth is, Give me one piece of scientifically verifiable evidence that evolution is a false theory.

Just one....

Point 1: You're impervious to evidence. No matter what evidence is given you, you deny it.

Point 2: The law of biogenesis was given as evidence to refute spontaneous generation. You ignored it and denied it.

Point 3: The burden of proof is on the new idea. It is up to you to prove your theory, not up to me to disprove it.

Therefore:

Well then, put your money where your mouth is, Give me one piece of scientifically verifiable evidence that evolution is a true theory.

Just one....

[Aric2000]

Give me a flipping break, I have told you again, and again and again.

1: you give me REAL scientific evidence that can be put to the scientific test, and if it comes out with flying colors, I would be very open minded about the new evidence.

2:Biogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, biological evolution, let us be specific.

3: Evolution is NOT a new idea, you have had 159 years to disprove it, yet you cannot. Every piece of evidence that you place before it is either, misrepresented to be something that it is not, an outright lie, or just plain silly. Every piece of evidence that you propose cannot stand up to peer review, it is demolished each and EVERY time.

Evolution is NOT proof that that is the way it happened, it is a theory that fits the available scientifically verifiable evidence. It is what makes sense.

Biologists use it every day to come up with cures for diseases, geneticists use it every day to figure out where and why some of the DNA and Chromosomes are the way they are, and how they got that way.

That is ALL the evidence I require, SCIENTISTS actually use it in a PRACTICAL way EVERY day.

Besides the Fossil evidence, the DNA evidence, microevolution evidence, the macroevolution evidence, etc, etc ad nauseum.

There is so MUCH SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that shows evolution to be true, that it is pretty ridiculous to write it off because you are a literal creationist.

Oh, and by the way, even if evolution is replaced at some point in the future, it will NOT be replaced by creationism, NOR ID, nor any other GODDIDIT theory, because a GODDIDIT theory is not falsifiable and therefore is NOT scientific.

I have MILLIONS of pieces of scientifically verifiable evidence that fit into the theory of evolution, yet you have yet to give me ANY pieces of scientifically verifiable evidence that disproves it.

[ALS]

I see the Eloons are still sidestepping reality and slinging boogers again.
What a great contribution they are to their kunckle dragging ilk.

[Aric2000]

Knuckle draggin ILK, boy that takes an IQ of 167 to come up with?

My 7 year old could have come up with that, oh that's right, she has more knowledge then you, NEVER MIND.

If ignorance is Bliss, you must be one of the most blissful people alive.

[ALS]

Still suffering from that pesky ol' inferiority complex eh.

[ALS]

Aric2000 said:
"My god has no name, no gender, no nothing, because I do not claim that a god must have human conditions placed upon them in order to be understandable, because a god is not understandable by definition.

If god were understandable, they would not be a god, now would they?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/902550/posts?page=1678#1678

Why do you feel a need for a god(s) then?
It's nothing and you don't understand it.
(Sounds just like your Crap Theory)

seek help

[kkindt]

How old are you?

[kkindt]

If you believe in a creator that USED evolution to create humans you believe in a cruel, stupid, inept god who had to use trial and error to get it right, if indeed, you think he did. Death has to be considered a "good" thing by evolutionist because it is by killing off the unfit that the fit are produced. Such a god is no more worthy of devotion than a pile of xxxx.

[kkindt]

"it obviously occrred at least once"

OBVIOUS means observed - but it has not been observed. What you mean is that it MUST have happened because if it didn't you are wrong.

And of course to say it "must have happened" is not science but religion. The religion that believes there is a god who used raw tooth and claw survival of the fittest methodology to create humans is a religion that worships a pretty pitiful deity.

[Quick1]

Mosquitos have evolved to resist pesticide. Clicky

[Junior]

Point 1: You're impervious to evidence. No matter what evidence is given you, you deny it.

I just did a search on your posts. In the past 100 posts (I didn't go back further, sorry), you haven't given any evidence that your position is the correct one. You carp at evolutionists; you high-five the more vitriolic creationists; you pick fights with people; but you haven't yet A) told us what your position actually is, or B) offered any evidence for whatever that position might be.

I've noticed this a lot lately. Some creationist will say, "I already explained that earlier," but a search of his postings (thanks, FR, for giving us the ability to search by poster) shows that no such posting has been made. The only one who even attempts to do such is g3k, and his arguments are so cocked up as to fall to a typical 30-second Google search. Maybe that's why creationists won't ever come out and actual state their views -- they know those views won't stand up to the light of day.

[Junior]

OBVIOUS means observed

Or "self evident."

[Doctor Stochastic]

Piltdown was questioned as early as December 1912 because Piltdown didn't fit with evolutionary theory. Only the English ever seemed to accept much about Piltdown. Both the German and American anthropologists objected, on the basis of evolutionary theory. The final debunking came from the radiocarbon dating in the 1950s. Creationists never contributed to the debunking of Piltdown.

As Creationists often reject both evolutionary theory and carbon dating, what is the Creationists evidence against Piltdown? So far, none has been presented.

[Cactus_Pie]

If you believe in a creator that USED evolution to create humans you believe in a cruel, stupid, inept god who had to use trial and error to get it right, if indeed, you think he did. Death has to be considered a "good" thing by evolutionist because it is by killing off the unfit that the fit are produced. Such a god is no more worthy of devotion than a pile of xxxx.

Or you believe in a god who set things in motion so perfectly that man evolved just as planned, which would be a pretty tricky thing to pull off.
On the other hand, you might say that mankind is a perfect creation in the eyes of God, except for the fact that God throught the tree of knowledge would never have an apple eaten, and the fact that god became so angry at humans that he killed everyone except Noah and crew, and the fact that God realized that killing everyone else was wrong and promised to never do that again.

[ALS]

and he admits to having a pitiful god(s)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/902550/posts?page=1678#1678