Why are there still apes?

April_Rose · Sep 18, 2020

driewerf said:
Have you ever seen a cosmologist using the word "fart" for the Big Bang?

No,.. I just thought that it was funny.

driewerf · Sep 18, 2020

never mind

April_Rose · Sep 18, 2020

driewerf said:
Instead of labeling by post as funny, do you dare to answer the question?

I did. -__-

driewerf · Sep 18, 2020

Have you ever seen a cosmologist using the word "fart" for the Big Bang?

April_Rose said:
No,.. I just thought that it was funny.

So again, you were wilfully and knowingly using misleading terminology.
That's twice in a very short time.

April_Rose · Sep 18, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 18, 2020

April_Rose said:
View attachment 284815

There's a difference between mockery and humour.

driewerf · Sep 18, 2020

April_Rose said:
View attachment 284815

I am just getting warmed up.

driewerf · Sep 18, 2020

coffee4u said:
April_Rose said:

Now that's where it gets confusing because scientifically speaking humans are animals. We're different from them in some ways but we're not in other ways.

Click to expand...

Scienticly speaking by who?

Actually the first one to say so was Carolus Linneaus, a devout pre-Darwinian creationist.

Shemjaza · Sep 18, 2020

April_Rose said:
Well maybe not turning into one directly but it describes slowly evolving into one.

It's important to remember that it's so sloooooow that you can't see it on a generation, by generation level.

Every creature will be the same species as its mother.

It's like the continents moving around. With special instruments we can measure it... but while Australia is moving half an inch a year towards India, I've never felt it.

Strathos · Sep 18, 2020

driewerf said:
So again, you were wilfully and knowingly using misleading terminology.
That's twice in a very short time.

Did you know that the term 'Big Bang' was originally coined by the astronomer Fred Hoyle as a derogatory reference to the theory since he initially didn't believe in it?

Hans Blaster · Sep 18, 2020

April_Rose said:
Well maybe not turning into one directly but it describes slowly evolving into one.

That was a chimp. Evolution DOES NOT describe chimps turning into humans, nor did it happen.

Just like my cousin didn't turn into me instead we have a common set of grandparents, the chimp and I have common ancestors, but a couple hundred thousand generations ago rather than two.

driewerf · Sep 18, 2020

Strathos said:
Did you know that the term 'Big Bang' was originally coined by the astronomer Fred Hoyle as a derogatory reference to the theory since he initially didn't believe in it?

Yes I know that. Apparently critics have only ridicule and mockery, no arguments.

James A · Sep 18, 2020

Hans Blaster said:
Thanks for assuming things about me.

I apologize, my post did not mean you but was in general.

James A · Sep 18, 2020

Jimmy D said:
It’s already been pointed out several times, to reinforce strange argument that the Cambrian explosion Is a thorn in the side of evolutionists you wrote...

“Recently, an international Biologist stated that appearance of complex species during the Cambrian Explosion were so rapid ands very little is known about the evolutionary ancestors, it looks like "someone planted the fossils there". In his defense, he clarified that he was not talking about creator.“

He doesn’t think that it “looks like someone planted the fossils there”, that was merely a rhetorical device at the start of his chapter, he then goes on to explain why that is not the case.

You quote Dawkins words out of context as if they back up your argument but the chapter from which they come actually does the opposite.... It does a nice job Of explaining aspects of the Cambrian.

Classic quote mining.

I probably have mixed up responses but, these are some comments I had in my mind where I referred to Dawkins

Jimmy D said:
A. No he didn't.
B. So what if he did (which he didn't). We do not cling dogmatically to Victorian science.

"He" is Darwin

Jimmy D said:
I'm not sure where you got that from. As I say though, it's neither here nor there, we've moved on from Victorian times.

doubtingmerle said:
Wait, this guy wasn't just a biologist, he was a Biologist? Sounds important. And he was "international"? Wow! Impressive. Who was this guy? Can you show me where he said this?

doubtingmerle · Sep 19, 2020

James A said:
I probably have mixed up responses but, these are some comments I had in my mind where I referred to Dawkins

"He" is Darwin

Let's move on.

We have been explaining to you that the Cambrian was not a time when modern animals appear in the fossil record. Rather it is a time when ancient worm like creatures diversified their use of hard parts. The Cambrian is totally consistent with evolution. Do you agree? Why or why not?

As far as I can tell, you deny that speciation ever occurs. Is that true? Then how do you explain that the oldest layers show life forms that are very different from upper layers? How do you explain that life gets progressively more like modern life as you move up the geologic column?

Shemjaza · Sep 19, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
Let's move on.

We have been explaining to you that the Cambrian was not a time when modern animals appear in the fossil record. Rather it is a time when ancient worm like creatures diversified their use of hard parts. The Cambrian is totally consistent with evolution. Do you agree? Why or why not?

As far as I can tell, you deny that speciation ever occurs. Is that true? Then how do you explain that the oldest layers show life forms that are very different from upper layers? How do you explain that life gets progressively more like modern life as you move up the geologic column?

I'm pretty sure they believe in mutation and diversification... but think that direct divine intervention is the only reasonable explanation.

Personally I'm confused by the logic that a system with a 99.9% fail rate is clearly being micro managed by an omniscient deity.

doubtingmerle · Sep 19, 2020

Shemjaza said:
I'm pretty sure they believe in mutation and diversification... but think that direct divine intervention is the only reasonable explanation.

It's really hard to tell. I realize that most creationists accept some micro-evolution. James A seems to disagree with all speciation. I have asked him several times and he will not answer. So we may never know.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 19, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
It's really hard to tell. I realize that most creationists accept some micro-evolution. James A seems to disagree with all speciation. I have asked him several times and he will not answer. So we may never know.

Most appear not to understand what speciation is.

doubtingmerle · Sep 20, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Most appear not to understand what speciation is.

...or the Cambrian Explosion, or the fallacy of argument by quote mining.

James A · Sep 20, 2020

Shemjaza said:
I'm pretty sure they believe in mutation and diversification... but think that direct divine intervention is the only reasonable explanation.

Personally I'm confused by the logic that a system with a 99.9% fail rate is clearly being micro managed by an omniscient deity.

Did Lord's plan "fail" when Satan tricked humanity in to the Fall? Was He incapable of striking a human king (Herod) down when He instructed Mary and Joseph to flee?

Earthly definition of "success" or "fail" is not binding to the Eternal Mind.

Why are there still apes?

Well-Known Member

a day at the Zoo

Well-Known Member

a day at the Zoo

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

a day at the Zoo

a day at the Zoo

Regular Member

No one important

Rocket surgeon

a day at the Zoo

Active Member

Active Member

I'll think about it.

Regular Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Active Member

Similar threads