Cavemen

[Nostromo]

Not maybe, not under some conditions, not if you look at it from the right angle, not it's true but we really don't know how it works, but in every case, it will be found to be true. That's what makes it scientific and a fact.

That's just not true, science deals with tentative positions. Something may be true in every known or observed case, but we can't possibly know if it's true in every case. There might be something out there that doesn't fit.

Things of that nature are generally considered facts, but not because science holds them to be absolutely true.

 

[SkyWriting]

So, what is this unequivocal, objectively and independently verifiable evidence of an intelligence having guided evolution?

I've said nothing of the sort.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I've said nothing of the sort.
Life has not evolved from a common ancestor.
Just a common Engineer using versatile building blocks of His own design.
The majority was created in His own time frame, not our time frame.
As are all the miracles in the Bible.

And, where is the evidence for this engineer, Bosko?

 

[SkyWriting]

That's just not true, science deals with tentative positions. Something may be true in every known or observed case, but we can't possibly know if it's true in every case. There might be something out there that doesn't fit.

Things of that nature are generally considered facts, but not because science holds them to be absolutely true.

Yaa...Today's Science is real squishy and gooey when they want to hedge their bets.
That would be most of the time.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yaa...Today's Science is real squishy and gooey when they want to hedge their bets.
That would be most of the time.

because that's the way it works -- you want pronouncements of infallibility, ask a clergyman, Bosko.

 

[SkyWriting]

So, what is this unequivocal, objectively and independently verifiable evidence of an intelligence having guided evolution?

The only thing that effects evolution are environmental pressures. And evidently their effects are limited. Some species hardly change at all.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The only thing that effects evolution are environmental pressures. And evidently their effects are limited. Some species hardly change at all.

Repeating the question: what is this unequivocal, objectively and independently verifiable evidence of an intelligence having guided evolution, Bosko?

 

[LightHorseman]

The only thing that effects evolution are environmental pressures. And evidently their effects are limited. Some species hardly change at all.

Species only "hardly change at all" if they remain in a very stable environment. Any species that experiences environmental change, for whatever reason, will either change or become extinct.

 

[Psudopod]

Social brain hypothesis -
The model was proposed by Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather intelligence evolved as a means of surviving in large and complex social groups.


Sexual selection -
This model is proposed by Geoffrey Miller who argues that human intelligence is unnecessarily sophisticated for the needs of hunter gatherers to survive.




Ecological dominance-social competition model -
a predominant model describing human intelligence's evolution is ecological dominance-social competition (EDSC) [7] explained by Mark V. Flinn, David C. Geary and Carol V. Ward based mainly on work by Richard D. Alexander. According to the model, human intelligence was able to evolve to significant levels due to human domination over its habitat.

Interesting, I'm sure, but how does any of this back up your point that humans are significatly less intelligent that they were thousands of years ago?

 

[Psudopod]

I've said nothing of the sort.
Life has not evolved from a common ancestor.
Just a common Engineer using versatile building blocks of His own design.

What sort of designer continues to use flawed desings when he has invented and used better ones?

 

[Naraoia]

I cant believe that so many people here are actually glorifying ancient people! These people were not civilized, they practised all kinds of horrible things like paganism and polygymy and HUMAN SACRIFICE to their PAGAN gods! why do people always have to glorify the past? We are so much better now then we were back then! Religion and society have brought us a long way!

Did you know that polygyny (a form of polygamy, you might want to learn the distinction...) is still the most common system in humans? I'm not sure I remember the exact numbers right, but over 80% of all human societies allow a man to have more than one wife. (This study should contain more detailed stats, IIRC)

So, yeah. I guess the vast majority of humans are horrible uncivilised monsters.

"Cave man" is a myth created to promote Darwins faulty assumption that natural selection is a mechanism capable of producing life from scratch rather than just a simple mechanism to sustain it.

Can you show me where Darwin assumed that natural selection could create life from scratch? The idea sounds distinctly un-Darwinian to me.

Ancient languages are both more sophisticated and difficult than languages currently used. No matter who used them, on average.

Hmm, as a native speaker of a language with (I think) more complicated conjugation and declension than Latin, I have to wonder if that's true.

(OK, we did get rid of a few of tenses over the centuries.)

How do you measure how "sophisticated" and "difficult" a language is, anyway?

 

[SkyWriting]

What sort of designer continues to use flawed designs when he has invented and used better ones?

The process of creation ended on day 7. Good designs are resilient enough to withstand countless generations of additional flaws/mutations.

 

[SkyWriting]

Can you show me where Darwin assumed that natural selection could create life from scratch? The idea sounds distinctly un-Darwinian to me.

I may have been thinking of neo-Darwinists rather than Darwin himself....assuming he existed.

 

[Skaloop]

I may have been thinking of neo-Darwinists rather than Darwin himself....assuming he existed.

No assumption necessary.

 

[corvus_corax]

Some choices could be:
The amount of co2 released into the atmosphere on a daily basis.
The amount of fresh water used for non drinking purposes.
The amount of unreplenishable energy used by population members on a daily basis.
These would show humanity to be at it's lowest and most moronic level ever.
These I just made up off the top of my head.

FINALLY!!!!!
Finally a creationist admits what they are doing
And I quote-
"just made up off the top of my head"

Thank you for being one of the FEW honest Creationists around here who just admit that they are just making stuff up..i.e. just creating stories to support their worldview with no objective empirical evidence.

You, in your blatant honesty, quite frankly, ROCK!!!!!!

You GO SW!!!!

Personally, I wanna hear more stuff you "just made up off the top of" your head!!!
You might be a contender with JohnR7, novaknight, and even dad.


PS- One might be wondering if I'm trolling. No I'm not, I'm just pointing out what SW said, and the fact that I am looking forward to more of what SW admits to stuff that SW "makes up", that's all.

 

[Naraoia]

I may have been thinking of neo-Darwinists rather than Darwin himself....assuming he existed.

Doesn't sound neo-Darwinian either.

 

[mpok1519]

Darwin and cavemen are myths. All those cavemen skeletons? Just foam rubber and plaster put there by previous generations of pranksters.

People who believe in creationism only believe it bc their parents believed it; ignorance of the facts might be genetic.

 

[Psudopod]

The process of creation ended on day 7. Good designs are resilient enough to withstand countless generations of additional flaws/mutations.

So the reason we have blindspots and other animals do not is thefalldidit, then? I could maybe understand that if it was just humans, but why were some animals cursed more than others?