| JudeNebula |
| Posted 05/22/12 at 01:49 PM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
| I'm not sure if anyone on here actually denies evolution. But if so, what do you think when you see something like the Hall of Human Origins in the Natural History Museum?
Here is a video about the hall.
|
| Loading... | |
| fredonly |
| Posted 05/22/12 at 02:32 PM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
I haven't watched the videos, but I can guess at their answer. They're either a different species (not human), or they are a natural variant of homo sapiens. If the former, they were on the ark. If the latter, then they are also descended from Noah.
|
| Loading... | |
| Archsage |
| Posted 05/22/12 at 02:36 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
I, personally, believe in evolution. But I suppose if I didn't, I'd think they were animal skeletons. Just plain skeletons from some kind of primate. Or some kind of Cain-descendent. Or some really ugly looking people. Lol.
All of which can be strongly defended. However, I have no qualms with evolution. I'd disagree with Darwinian evolutions "successive variance", as well as the diminution of the Human species as something purely naturalistic, however.
|
| Loading... | |
| lucid |
| Posted 05/22/12 at 07:17 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Archsage
I, personally, believe in evolution. But I suppose if I didn't, I'd think they were animal skeletons. Just plain skeletons from some kind of primate. Or some kind of Cain-descendent. Or some really ugly looking people. Lol.
All of which can be strongly defended.
1) We are animals. 2) Those skeletons are of "some kind of primate"... Neanderthals. 3) Cain never existed. 4) They were not modern "people", they were Neanderthals. |
| Loading... | |
| Archsage |
| Posted 05/22/12 at 07:23 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lucidQuote: Originally Posted by Archsage
I, personally, believe in evolution. But I suppose if I didn't, I'd think they were animal skeletons. Just plain skeletons from some kind of primate. Or some kind of Cain-descendent. Or some really ugly looking people. Lol.
All of which can be strongly defended.
1) We are animals. 2) Those skeletons are of "some kind of primate"... Neanderthals. 3) Cain never existed. 4) They were not modern "people", they were Neanderthals.
(1) You know the connotative difference between "Man" and "Animal". Use some sense.
(2) Exactly. The finding could have no implications besides its explicit reference. Pretty straightforward, how'd you miss that?
(3) Lol. Good luck proving that.
(4) Of course they aren't modern people. Why did you use the term "modern" anyway? Or are you saying in order to not look ugly, they most be modern?
I would never pick you to be on my team if we were doing a debate for the sake of evolution lucid. You don't think things through. You just say stuff. Use science to prove science. Study evolutionary biology. But, for the love of the truth, don't make those stupid retorts that you just did. The science is there for you, just use that instead.
|
| Loading... | |
| lucid |
| Posted 05/22/12 at 08:02 PM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ArchsageQuote: Originally Posted by lucidQuote: Originally Posted by Archsage
I, personally, believe in evolution. But I suppose if I didn't, I'd think they were animal skeletons. Just plain skeletons from some kind of primate. Or some kind of Cain-descendent. Or some really ugly looking people. Lol.
All of which can be strongly defended.
1) We are animals. 2) Those skeletons are of "some kind of primate"... Neanderthals. 3) Cain never existed. 4) They were not modern "people", they were Neanderthals. (1) You know the connotative difference between "Man" and "Animal". Use some sense. (2) Exactly. The finding could have no implications besides its explicit reference. Pretty straightforward, how'd you miss that? (3) Lol. Good luck proving that. (4) Of course they aren't modern people. Why did you use the term "modern" anyway? Or are you saying in order to not look ugly, they most be modern? I would never pick you to be on my team if we were doing a debate for the sake of evolution lucid. You don't think things through. You just say stuff. Use science to prove science. Study evolutionary biology. But, for the love of the truth, don't make those stupid retorts that you just did. The science is there for you, just use that instead.
1) Calling the skeletons animal skeletons is a pointless truism. 2) All primates are related, this can't be ignored, and the opposite can't be "strongly defended" 3) Has been proven. Evolution. 4) They couldn't have just been "people"(ugly or not) as some idiot creationist might argue. They are Neanderthals. A different species, not close family.
No, arch, you need to study biology. Every sentence you type attests to the fact that you, like most christians, know next to nothing about it.
"All of which can be strongly defended..."
Gimme a break dude, you aint smart. |
| Loading... | |
| Archsage |
| Posted 05/22/12 at 08:08 PM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lucidQuote: Originally Posted by ArchsageQuote: Originally Posted by lucidQuote: Originally Posted by Archsage
I, personally, believe in evolution. But I suppose if I didn't, I'd think they were animal skeletons. Just plain skeletons from some kind of primate. Or some kind of Cain-descendent. Or some really ugly looking people. Lol.
All of which can be strongly defended.
1) We are animals. 2) Those skeletons are of "some kind of primate"... Neanderthals. 3) Cain never existed. 4) They were not modern "people", they were Neanderthals. (1) You know the connotative difference between "Man" and "Animal". Use some sense. (2) Exactly. The finding could have no implications besides its explicit reference. Pretty straightforward, how'd you miss that? (3) Lol. Good luck proving that. (4) Of course they aren't modern people. Why did you use the term "modern" anyway? Or are you saying in order to not look ugly, they most be modern? I would never pick you to be on my team if we were doing a debate for the sake of evolution lucid. You don't think things through. You just say stuff. Use science to prove science. Study evolutionary biology. But, for the love of the truth, don't make those stupid retorts that you just did. The science is there for you, just use that instead.
1) Calling the skeletons animal skeletons is a pointless truism. 2) All primates are related, this can't be ignored, and the opposite can't be "strongly defended" 3) Has been proven. Evolution. 4) They couldn't have just been "people"(ugly or not) as some idiot creationist might argue. They are Neanderthals. A different species, not close family.
No, arch, you need to study biology. Every sentence you type attests to the fact that you, like most christians, know next to nothing about it.
"All of which can be strongly defended..."
Gimme a break dude, you aint smart.
 Yeah, sure.
|
| Loading... | |
| idunno |
| Posted 05/22/12 at 08:23 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Sticks and stones may break his bones, but words will never hurt Archsage.  |
| Loading... | |
| Sonick92 |
| Posted 05/23/12 at 03:10 AM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by idunnoSticks and stones may break his bones, but words will never hurt Archsage.
I've read on the ICR and AiG pages that cavemen and what evolution calls primitive man are considered to them as normal humans. The YEC perspective is really backwards to me so when i see these things. I just hold judgment until i review the matter, because i know somewhere down the line. A fundamental point is completely different. |
| Loading... | |
| VictorEremita |
| Posted 05/24/12 at 12:23 AM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
Quote: What do people who don't believe in evolution think . . . ?
A big problem here is the vagueness and ambiguity of the term "evolution". The first part of a good logical argument is clear and unambiguous terms (then true premises, then valid reasoning). Most of the debate, most of the work, as Socrates was ever demonstrating, is in the clarification of terms. But clarifying terms is hard, boring work. So the term "evolution" usually stands unqualified, as it does in this thread - an umbrella word. And even prefixed with adjectives like "biological" or "Darwinian", it's too equivocal. Sometimes, I'll start on the evolutionary theories of the pre-Socratics when the subject arises. Feigning amnesia: "Who was the scientist that said life evolved by means of adaptation to environment, that we humans originally resembled fish-like creatures? . . . Ah, yes, Anaximander, 6th century BC. No, I don't believe in that." This for the dual purpose of being cheeky and getting the discussion around to definitions. For the sort of fundamentalists that the OP has in mind, "evolution" probably connotes a jumble of confusions tantamount to atheism. If you sat down with them and talked it out - defined it out - then you may (or may not) be able to convince them of its innocuousness.
Quote: Originally Posted by lucid 1) Calling the skeletons animal skeletons is a pointless truism. In everyday speech, "animal" is still an ellipsis for "brute animal," rather than "rational animal." (A shadow of Aristotelianism remains, by the dog.) So, no, it isn't a pointless truism. But, as Archsage said, you knew that already. |
| Loading... | |
| vmancha |
| Posted 05/24/12 at 01:01 AM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lucid
Gimme a break dude, you aint smart. Hey smart dude give a smart journal article showing how evolution has explained the origin of the DNA molecule. A smart guy like yourself should have no problem with this. |
| Loading... | |
| lucid |
| Posted 05/24/12 at 05:15 PM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by vmanchaQuote: Originally Posted by lucid
Gimme a break dude, you aint smart. Hey smart dude give a smart journal article showing how evolution has explained the origin of the DNA molecule. A smart guy like yourself should have no problem with this.
Explain to me your understanding about how life on earth originated without mentioning evolution. |
| Loading... | |
| TheProblemOfAtheism |
| Posted 05/24/12 at 05:25 PM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by JudeNebulaI'm not sure if anyone on here actually denies evolution. But if so, what do you think when you see something like the Hall of Human Origins in the Natural History Museum?
Here is a video about the hall.
Just curious, how many specimens of neanderthals have we found, and what conditions have they been found in? |
| Loading... | |
| Wayfollower |
| Posted 05/24/12 at 09:39 PM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by JudeNebulaI'm not sure if anyone on here actually denies evolution. But if so, what do you think when you see something like the Hall of Human Origins in the Natural History Museum?
Here is a video about the hall.
What do you think when you see pictures of pigmies? What do you think when you see pictures of those who were considered giants? Just because they look different doesn't mean they are less than human; and those that are more similar to primates ARE animal species, such as extinct apes, that are just disimilar from those of today! |
| Loading... | |
| itsallgood |
| Posted 05/25/12 at 02:30 AM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Wayfollower
What do you think when you see pictures of pigmies?
I think natural selection.
Quote:
What do you think when you see pictures of those who were considered giants?
Like who?
I think the norse are considered one of the largest.
Quote: Just because they look different doesn't mean they are less than human; and those that are more similar to primates ARE animal species, such as extinct apes, that are just disimilar from those of today!
Nope, genetics proves you wrong.
|
| Loading... | |
