C
Critias
Guest
Again, they were not meant as insults. However, if you choose to make them that way for your case then that's your choice. I'll let you get back to defending creationism.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then please don't insult those of us who do evolutionary science if you can't support yourself. If you just want to rattle peoples' cages and make trouble, please take it somewhere else.
Saying that the science of "Evolution makes the assumption that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and then pieces 'evidence' it finds to support that assumption" is insulting for those of us who actually practice the science, regardless of whether you meant to be insulting or not. It's an insult not only to the individual, but to the field as a whole. You don't slap someone in the face and then tell them it wasn't meant to hurt.Again, they were not meant as insults. However, if you choose to make them that way for your case then that's your choice.
Saying that the science of "Evolution makes the assumption that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and then pieces 'evidence' it finds to support that assumption" is insulting for those of us who actually practice the science, regardless of whether you meant to be insulting or not. It's an insult not only to the individual, but to the field as a whole. You don't slap someone in the face and then tell them it wasn't meant to hurt.
It's also completely wrong. Those conclusions came from the observations Darwin made. He didn't just set out saying "LOL LETS FIND A WAY TO SAY HUMANS CAME FROM MONKEYS!" Current evidence is "retrofitted" into the theory, but that's because the conclusions already exist from previous observations, and these new pieces of evidence help further justify that conclusion.
Yes, as you have discovered, a difficulty with attacking an entire group is that groups turn out to be composed of individual persons, and persons often take attacks personally.Well, that was not meant as a personal attack. However, some scientists (and I should have said some originally, so I apologize) do try and PROVE their work.
Your comments were pretty clear: you think those who study human evolution are substantially more guilty of this than other scientists. That's the point I wish to challenge you on.Woah. My comment on the fact that there are scientists who have biases and try to prove their work has nothing to do with what my life origin view points are.
BOTH (evolution/creation) sides of the debate, I believe, are guilty of that.
All snarking aside . . .What type of support do you desire? Do you want just a statement, a hand written note from a scientists, dental records that show imprints of lies?
Scientists, who are creationsists, are often (not always) guilty of creating a theory and trying to prove this. Corruption knows no bounds of religious beliefs or lack thereof.
I bet you didn't expect me to speak against (gasp!) creationists.
The first is evidence that humans and chimpanzees differ, not that they are not related. The second is mostly evidence that there are many more humans than chimpanzees. Chimpanzees do go to war and kill each other with considerable frequency. There just aren't enough chimps around for there to be tens of thousands of casualties.
Evidence, please? I have never seen a comparison between typical rates for chimpanzees and for humans killing each other, so I can't make any statement about which is larger. All I know is that both murder and war can be readily seen by observing small groups of chimpanzees, which suggests that the rate is nontrivial. You obviously have better information, so tell us what you know, and how you know it.Com'n, you can argue better than that. First, it is a scale problem. Second, even human population is the same as chimp population, they will still kill each other many more in numbers than chimps do. Is that what people said how did the Neanderthals extinct?
In reference to the red text, maybe you could give a quick proof read of your short posts to make sure the sentences, if not proper, are at least coherent. Of course people use improper grammar online, but at least make it make sense.Com'n, you can argue better than that. First, it is a scale problem. Second, even human population is the same as chimp population, they will still kill each other many more in numbers than chimps do. Is that what people said how did the Neanderthals extinct?
Yes, as you have discovered, a difficulty with attacking an entire group is that groups turn out to be composed of individual persons, and persons often take attacks personally.
Your comments were pretty clear: you think those who study human evolution are substantially more guilty of this than other scientists. That's the point I wish to challenge you on.
All snarking aside . . .
Scientists are just as human as anyone else, and have their share of biases and vices; nonetheless, they really are usually willing to give up even their most cherished ideas in the face of data.
But we're not talking about scientists in general here; we're talking about evolution (or human evolution) in particular. Your original comments suggest that you view that branch of science as particularly corrupted and prone to preconceptions. I'm genuinely curious about where you get that idea. I have pretty broad experience in science, and I don't see that at all. My work is only involved tangentially in questions of common ancestry, but I think it is one of the better established conclusions in any science, and that the science being done in that area is no different in kind than you will find in any field.
Now I understand if you don't want to get into a debate about this, but could you at least explain how you come by your view?
(By the way, all scientists try to prove (for loose meanings of "prove") their ideas. That's where much of the motivation for doing science comes from: come up with an idea about the world and show that it's true. The key is a willingness to drop the idea and move on to another one when the evidence goes against you. )
Isn't it a bit [what's the word I'm looking for here . . . oh yes] presumptuous to assume what my reaction would be? Actually, I'm not surprised. You don't come across as a typical creationist, and I hadn't drawn any conclusions about your beliefs in the matter.
Saying that the science of "Evolution makes the assumption that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and then pieces 'evidence' it finds to support that assumption" is insulting for those of us who actually practice the science, regardless of whether you meant to be insulting or not. It's an insult not only to the individual, but to the field as a whole. You don't slap someone in the face and then tell them it wasn't meant to hurt.
Sorry to be the first to tell you this, but evolution isn't a presupposed belief, it is a conclusion based on multiple lines of independent evidence.Actually you're not quite right about that. While I do think those who study human evolution are looking at it with existing presuppositions that support the "belief", I don't think they are the only ones to do so.
In reference to the red text, maybe you could give a quick proof read of your short posts to make sure the sentences, if not proper, are at least coherent. Of course people use improper grammar online, but at least make it make sense.
I haven't chatted with you in a while but it seems that you've run away from genetic, morphological, phylogenetic, and geological arguments and now you are desperately trying to cling to anything you can. Are we getting through to you? Are you grasping at the last staws of what you know is a false view of our origins? I've been there. It's OK to let it go, it doesn't mean that you have to stop being a Christian. I've been there, check out the following threads and notice the original dates:
me arguing evolution as a theory
http://www.christianforums.com/t2216136/
trying to make sense of my YEC view
http://www.christianforums.com/t2066329/
with these 2 i was actually trying to understand
http://www.christianforums.com/t2123890/
[COLOR="Red"]http://www.christianforums.com/t2072977/[/COLOR]
It was the last link, the one about the grand canyon that helped lead me to accept the age of the earth.
Anyways Juvy, I think you'll get even more out of your faith when you see God's creation for what it is.
Evidence, please? I have never seen a comparison between typical rates for chimpanzees and for humans killing each other, so I can't make any statement about which is larger. All I know is that both murder and war can be readily seen by observing small groups of chimpanzees, which suggests that the rate is nontrivial. You obviously have better information, so tell us what you know, and how you know it.
Please tell me how the meandering represents a global flood.People argued in that thread at geology 101 level. That is why they thought the incised meander is a feature represent long time.
Chimpanzees do not have the technology to cause mass casualties at one time, but communities do carry out campaigns of sustained violence against other communities, which can result in the complete annihilation of the targeted community. That sure sounds like war to me.I don't. All I have is that I have never heard that chimp kills each other by hundreds or even by tens. In their "wars", I guess one or two casualties would be the highest. So, their war should not be called war, but, may be fight. Only human wars. Again, I don't have data. What I have is that I did not hear any report said otherwise.
Chimpanzees do not have the technology to cause mass casualties at one time, but communities do carry out campaigns of sustained violence against other communities, which can result in the complete annihilation of the targeted community. That sure sounds like war to me.
From what I have seen online, it looks like the total death rate from acts of violence is if anything higher in chimps than in humans. The sporadic murder rate seems to be around 0.5% per year. Then there are wars, like the first one observed in Gombe, in which the larger community wiped out a small, splinter community over a period of four years, and the ones that seem to have broken out in Gabon in response to logging, which were blamed for killing 80% of the chimp population in some areas.
Please tell me how the meandering represents a global flood.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?