Q For Darwinists: Are Fish Birds or Dinosaurs?

[Targ]

How are you defining human?

If by human you mean Homo sapiens sapiens then I agree that humans gave birth to the humans that are mythologically alleged to have not existed in Kenya in 195,001 B.C. and then somehow magically and miraculously appeared for no reason in 195,000 B.C.

Anaximander is spot on, evolution is a gradual process and there was no one date at which the first human was born. As somebody else said recently, each baby born has 15 mutations that are different from their parent's DNA, so even the human population alive today would differ to some extent from the human population alive 5,000 years ago. Go back far enough and humans will be so different that they will have ceased to be human. This is evolution 101, and given how long you have debated this subject, you cannot tell me you aren't aware of this and aren't just arguing for arguments sake.

LOL. I challenge you to name one hypothesis other than evolution that is legal to teach in public school biology.

Germ theory.

And if Darwinists are so confident in their so-called "theory" why do they need to use censorship and the law to enforce their religious beliefs?

Because otherwise the classroom would legally get filled with every crank-driven controversy you can think of. One of the findings of the Dover School Board v Kitzmiller trial was that if ID / creationism is to be taught in science classes alongside evolution, then by the same reasoning it would also be legal to teach astrology in the science classroom alongside astronomy. It was also found that ID is unscientific, partly because ID invokes miracles, whereas evolution does not. ID therefore does not belong in a science class room. Many of the objections to evolution by IDs / creationists were also found to be erroneous.

There is mountains of case history that you cannot just dismiss. If you don't like the judge's decision, there's no point whinging about it on here. The burden is on you or someone who agrees with you to go to a courthouse and file a petition against the decisions of Judge Jones. Let us know how you get on.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Anaximander is spot on, evolution is a gradual process and there was no one date at which the first human was born.

Unfortunately Darwinism says the exact opposite.

195,001 B.C. no humans like us; 195,000 B.C. humans like us magically and miraculously appear for no reason.

As somebody else said recently, each baby born has 15 mutations that are different from their parent's DNA, so even the human population alive today would differ to some extent from the human population alive 5,000 years ago.

15 mutations and yet they still give birth to humans like us...hmmm.

Go back far enough and humans will be so different that they will have ceased to be human.

ROFL. How far back would that be? Far enough is not a scientific date.

Germ theory.

Not an account of human origins unless you mean an evolutionary so-called "theory" that says that dinosaurs, centipedes, and humans evolved from germs.

Because otherwise the classroom would legally get filled with every crank-driven controversy you can think of.

So?

Anything would be better than the pseudoscientists and crackpots we have now teaching evolution (child abuse imo).

One of the findings of the Dover School Board v Kitzmiller trial was that if ID / creationism is to be taught in science classes alongside evolution, then by the same reasoning it would also be legal to teach astrology in the science classroom alongside astronomy.

Astrology was the original name for astronomy.

Same thing.

It was also found that ID is unscientific, partly because ID invokes miracles, whereas evolution does not.

ROFL.

If that were true then gravitation would be unscientific because gravitation specifically invokes miracles.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

"Meanwhile remote operation has just been revived in England by the admirable Mr. Newton, who maintains that it is the nature of bodies to be attracted and gravitate one towards another, in proportion to the mass of each one, and the rays of attraction it receives. Accordingly the famous Mr. Locke, in his answer to Bishop Stillingfleet, declares that having seen Mr. Newton's book he retracts what he himself said, following the opinion of the moderns, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, to wit, that a body cannot operate immediately upon another except by touching it upon its surface and driving it by its motion. He acknowledges that God can put properties into matter which cause it to operate from a distance. Thus the theologians of the Augsburg Confession claim that God may ordain not only that a body operate immediately on divers bodies remote from one another, but that it even exist in their neighbourhood and be received by them in a way with which distances of place and dimensions of space have nothing to do. Although this effect transcends the forces of Nature, they do not think it possible to show that it surpasses the power of the Author of Nature. For him it is easy to annul the laws that he has given or to dispense with them as seems good to him, in the same way as he was able to make iron float upon water and to stay the operation of fire upon the human body." -- Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

In fact evolution invokes miracles as well since only a miracle can cause abiotic chemicals and minerals to spontaneously evolve into living organisms.

And furthermore only a miracle could cause archaea to evolve into a dinosaur and cause an ape to evolve into a man.

ID therefore does not belong in a science class room.

LOL. Darwinism does not belong in a science class room.

Darwinism is a pseudoscientific religion.

Many of the objections to evolution by IDs / creationists were also found to be erroneous.

Many of the objections to creationism by Darwinists were also found to erroneous.

There is mountains of case history that you cannot just dismiss. If you don't like the judge's decision, there's no point whinging about it on here. The burden is on you or someone who agrees with you to go to a courthouse and file a petition against the decisions of Judge Jones. Let us know how you get on.

I'm thinking of moving to a country where it is illegal to teach Darwinism to children.

 

[Aianna]

Unfortunately Darwinism says the exact opposite.

195,001 B.C. no humans like us; 195,000 B.C. humans like us magically and miraculously appear for no reason.

15 mutations and yet they still give birth to humans like us...hmmm.

You don't seem to understand that a human didn't just amazing pop out from something radically different than a human.

It's kind of like identifying the first "red" line in a blue-red gradient.

One of the best videos you can watch to help explain this to you (in my opinion) is this one, YouTube - Fuzzy Logic and the Definition of Species (Fuzzy Logic and the Definition of Species).

Astrology was the original name for astronomy.

Astrology played a role in shaping early astronomy but they're not and never were the same thing.

If that were true then gravitation would be unscientific because gravitation specifically invokes miracles.

...snipe

Gravitational theory has come quite a long way since 1710 actually. Scientists don't call it magic anymore.

In fact evolution invokes miracles as well since only a miracle can cause abiotic chemicals and minerals to spontaneously evolve into living organisms.

Abiogenesis is not evolution, however just because you don't know how non-living matter could produce living matter doesn't mean it takes a miracle.

And furthermore only a miracle could cause archaea to evolve into a dinosaur and cause an ape to evolve into a man.

That's quite the claim considering the extraordinary amount of evidence gathered showing that humans evolved from other hominids.

Many of the objections to creationism by Darwinists were also found to erroneous.

Which and by whom?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

You don't seem to understand that a human didn't just amazing pop out from something radically different than a human.

Actually I do understand it which is exactly why I reject Darwinism.

Astrology played a role in shaping early astronomy but they're not and never were the same thing.

Astrology and astronomy were once the same thing: Online Etymology Dictionary

Originally identical with astronomy

"And since they [Chaldeans] have observed the stars over a long period of time and have noted both the movements and the influences of each of them with greater precision than any other men, they foretell to mankind many things that will take place in the future. But above all importance, they say, is the study of the influence of the five stars known as planets, which they call 'Interpreters' when speaking of them as a group, but if referring to them singly, the one named Cronus [Saturn] by the Greeks, which is the most conspicuous and presages more events and such as are of greater importance than the others, they call the star of Helius, whereas the other four they designate as the stars of Ares [Mars], Aphrodite [Venus], Hermes [Mercury], and Zeus [Jupiter], as do our astrologers." -- Diodorus Siculus, historian, Library of History, Book II, 1st century B.C.

Gravitational theory has come quite a long way since 1710 actually.

It's only gotten more and more absurd with each passing year.

Scientists don't call it magic anymore.

No, they just call it Dark Forces (e.g. Dark Energy and Dark Flow).

"In summation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy add up to the blank cheques that postpone the falsification of bankrupt theories." -- Ralph Sansbury, physicist, May 2009

"Dark matter is an excuse for the failure of gravitational theories." -- Stephen Smith, author, June 17th 2010

Abiogenesis is not evolution, however just because you don't know how non-living matter could produce living matter doesn't mean it takes a miracle.

In fact, abiogenesis is evolution from nonliving to living.

That's quite the claim considering the extraordinary amount of evidence gathered showing that humans evolved from other hominids.

At one point in history people like you said that heliocentricity was quite a claim considering the extraordinary amount of evidence gathered showing that the solar system is geocentric.

Which and by whom?

William Dembski has shown that in order for Darwinism to be testable ID must also be testable.

"Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, August 25th 2005

And even Richard Dawkins agrees with that.

"Well, it [Intelligent Design] could come about in the following way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation ... [came] to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, 2008

 

[Targ]

195,001 B.C. no humans like us; 195,000 B.C. humans like us magically and miraculously appear for no reason.

Straw man. No evolutionist believes that one day humans magically and miraculously appeared.

15 mutations and yet they still give birth to humans like us...hmmm.

Add it up over hundreds of thousands of years and you'll start to notice a big difference between us now and humans then.

ROFL. How far back would that be? Far enough is not a scientific date.

You know fine well when.

Not an account of human origins unless you mean an evolutionary so-called "theory" that says that dinosaurs, centipedes, and humans evolved from germs.

Since you didn't ask about an other theory for human origins, I could not therefore answer such a question. If you wanted to know that, you should have asked it. What you instead asked was for an example of a theory taught in a biology classroom. Don't know about you but my biology classes covered more than the subject of evolution. In fact, I reckon evolution accounted for about 1 hour out of 5 years studying biology in high school. The rest of the time we studied things like medicine, anatomy, botany, ecology etc.

Anything would be better than the pseudoscientists and crackpots we have now teaching evolution (child abuse imo).

Says the UFO fanatic. The irony tastes sweet. Nom nom nom.

Astrology was the original name for astronomy.

Astronomy and astrology are quite different subjects as Aianna has pointed out. Astrology may have come first, but this does not change the fact that modern astrology is about gleaning messages from the stars, horoscopes etc, while modern astronomy consists of exploration and understanding the cosmos using mathematics, physics etc.

ROFL.

A fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

If that were true then gravitation would be unscientific because gravitation specifically invokes miracles.

What a load of rubbish.

In fact evolution invokes miracles as well since only a miracle can cause abiotic chemicals and minerals to spontaneously evolve into living organisms.

Spontaneous generation of life / abiogenesis does not equal evolution.

And furthermore only a miracle could cause archaea to evolve into a dinosaur and cause an ape to evolve into a man.

Or mutations ...

LOL. Darwinism does not belong in a science class room.

Darwinism is a pseudoscientific religion.

Since evolution does not invoke miracles and looks solely for natural explanations (of which there are many), it can hardly be considered a religion. Rather it is an observable (e.g. nylonase), testable (e.g. the discovery of tiktaalik) theory.

Many of the objections to creationism by Darwinists were also found to erroneous.

Could you provide examples from the trial transcripts? I mean sure, I'll happily admit that evolution has been the targets of hoaxes (e.g. Piltdown man), but so has creationism. The difference with evolution however is that it is a science in that it is prepared to admit and correct mistakes and dispose of invalid findings when pointed out, unlike creationism.

I'm thinking of moving to a country where it is illegal to teach Darwinism to children.

A country such as? Mmm, yeah, good luck with that!

 

[MoonLancer]

Actually I do understand it which is exactly why I reject Darwinism.

your comment before shows that you do not.

I'm thinking of moving to a country where it is illegal to teach Darwinism to children.

have fun being a Muslim

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Straw man. No evolutionist believes that one day humans magically and miraculously appeared.

In fact, every evolutionist on Earth believes that.

Allow me to quote your infallible Darwinist Holy Scriptures that can never be questioned: Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago

So in other words, according to evolution, there were no humans that looked like us until 200,000 B.C. and no humans that behaved like us until 50,000 B.C. What caused humans that look like us to magically and miraculously appear in 200,000 B.C.? What caused humans that didn't behave like us in 50,001 B.C. to start behaving like us in 50,000 B.C.? Magic or miracle?

Since you didn't ask about an other theory for human origins, I could not therefore answer such a question.

Since you didn't want to understand what I said, you didn't want to give a serious answer...

If you wanted to know that, you should have asked it. What you instead asked was for an example of a theory taught in a biology classroom. Don't know about you but my biology classes covered more than the subject of evolution. In fact, I reckon evolution accounted for about 1 hour out of 5 years studying biology in high school. The rest of the time we studied things like medicine, anatomy, botany, ecology etc.

And you still don't get it.

Astronomy and astrology are quite different subjects as Aianna has pointed out. Astrology may have come first, but this does not change the fact that modern astrology is about gleaning messages from the stars, horoscopes etc, while modern astronomy consists of exploration and understanding the cosmos using mathematics, physics etc.

Originally astrology was based on mathematics and physics whereas astronomy was based upon geocentrism and pseudoscience.

What a load of rubbish.

Obviously you've never read Sir Isaac Newton and are therefore totally ignorant of the so-called Law of Universal Gravitation which specifically relies upon divine intervention and miracleworks.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, Principia, 1687

 

[DDdreamer]

In fact, every evolutionist on Earth believes that.

Nope, not me and no one else either.

Allow me to quote your infallible Darwinist Holy Scriptures that can never be questioned: [Wikilink]

Rofl. Never be questioned? Never trust wikipedia to 100%, always confirm what it says somewhere else, I say.

So in other words, according to evolution, there were no humans that looked like us until 200,000 B.C. and no humans that behaved like us until 50,000 B.C. What caused humans that look like us to magically and miraculously appear in 200,000 B.C.? What caused humans that didn't behave like us in 50,001 B.C. to start behaving like us in 50,000 B.C.? Magic or miracle?

They didn't magically appear, as has been said several times to you. The age mentioned is most likely the rough age at which the more human-like creatures first appeared. Note: ROUGH AGE and HUMAN-LIKE. Not exact age and completely human.

Since you didn't want to understand what I said, you didn't want to give a serious answer...


And you still don't get it.


Originally astrology was based on mathematics and physics whereas astronomy was based upon geocentrism and pseudoscience.

So, what? It isn't based on that anymore. Modern astrology is pseudo-science. Modern astronomy is not. The old definitions doesn't really matter.

Obviously you've never read Sir Isaac Newton and are therefore totally ignorant of the so-called Law of Universal Gravitation which specifically relies upon divine intervention and miracleworks.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, Principia, 1687

As said earlier in this thread, the theory of gravity has come a long way since 1687. It's no longer considered magic. A 323 year old quote doesn't represent what modern scientists think.


Marcus

 

[Anaximander]

Agonaces of Susa,

The reason why you do not understand how the phrase, "humans gave birth only to humans", is in perfect accordance with biological evolution is because you received your science education from someone else with a huge misconception, anti-evolution creationists. Even though you claim to have received your education from "evil"utionists, this misconception refutes your claim. <edit>
Your braincells perceive evolution occurring sequentially on individuals, as in an australopithecine eventually gave birth to a Homo habilis. Eventually a Homo habilis gives birth to a Homo erectus, and after many generations a Homo erectus gives birth to an archaic form of Homo sapien, etc. Your comments prove your idea of evolution is this because you have asked questions like "when did an ape give birth to a human?" This "evolutionary ladder" or "link in the chain of evolution" idea has been rejected by evolutionary biologists for over a century. The only people that keep this defunct version going are journalist when they claim, "Missing Link", and creationists.

Evolution ONLY occurs upon populations AND only if they possess variation in characteristics (alleles). If all individuals in a population were identical, evolution is impossible. What this means is all generations mate with their own "kind" while evolution is occurring. <edit>

best,

 

[rockaction]

Anaximander, you are a new hero of mine.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

your comment before shows that you do not.

have fun being a Muslim

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Rofl. Never be questioned? Never trust wikipedia to 100%, always confirm what it says somewhere else, I say.

Gasp.

Are you telling me you actually disagree with infallible fundamentalist Scripture? That is pure heresy mate.

They didn't magically appear, as has been said several times to you.

If it wasn't magic then what was the cause?

The age mentioned is most likely the rough age at which the more human-like creatures first appeared. Note: ROUGH AGE and HUMAN-LIKE. Not exact age and completely human.

Darwinists say otherwise. They say no humans that look like us in 201,000 B.C. and then suddenly, for no reason, humans like us 200,000 B.C. They say no humans that acted liked us 50,001 B.C. and then suddenly, for no reason, humans start behaving like us in 50,000 B.C.

So, what? It isn't based on that anymore. Modern astrology is pseudo-science. Modern astronomy is not. The old definitions doesn't really matter.

So you claim.

As said earlier in this thread, the theory of gravity has come a long way since 1687.

There is no theory of gravity. There are many theories of gravity.

"The present does not seem to be the proper time to investigate the cause of the acceleration of natural motion [i.e., gravity], concering which various opinions have been expressed by various philosophers, some explaining it by attraction to the center, others to repulsion between the very small parts of the body, while still others attribute it to a certain stress in the surrounding medium which closes in behind the falling body and drives it from one of its positions to another." -- Galileo Galilei, physicist, 1638

However it hasn't advanced at all.

It's only gotten more and more absurd with epicycles such as curved Riemannian Spacetime, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Dark Flow.

"Einstein&#8217;s theory of gravity is the craziest explanation of the phenomenon imaginable." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, 2001

"In summation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy add up to the blank cheques that postpone the falsification of bankrupt theories." -- Ralph Sansbury, physicist, May 2009

"Dark matter is an excuse for the failure of gravitational theories." -- Stephen Smith, author, June 17th 2010

There was no "Theory of Gravity" in 1687.

The observation of gravity comes from ancient times.

"The atoms, as their own weight bears them down...." -- Lucretius, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

"Those bodies [atoms] acknowledge these three accidents, figure, magnitude, and gravity. Democritus acknowledged but two, magnitude and figure. Epicurus added the third, to wit, gravity; for he pronounced that it is necessary that bodies receive their motion from that impression which springs from gravity, otherwise they could not be moved." -- Plutarch, Opinions of the Philosophers, 1st century

"... to what Agent did the Ancients attribute the gravity of their atoms and what did they mean by calling God an harmony and comparing him & matter (the corporeal part of the Universe) to the God Pan and his Pipe?" -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 169-

Newton's 1687 hypothesis is called the "Theory of Universal Gravitation."

And that hypothesis is not a theory.

"Newton attempted to explain the force of gravity on two hypotheses: the existence of a medium, or ether, and action at a distance. The first hypothesis he rejected as being physically absurd, the second as contrary to reason. Newton had, therefore, no theory of gravity." -- Melbourne G. Evans, physicist, 1958

It is rather a falsified hypothesis.

"The mathematical proofs of Newton are completely erroneous." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, polymath, 1942

"It was only the downfall of Newtonian theory in this century which made scientists realize that their standards of honesty had been utopian." -- Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973

"Well, you know, if you flip a coin it doesn't come back down again if you're in space." -- Buzz Aldrin, astronaut, 2007

"The only solution would be to reject Newton's classical theory of gravitation. We probably live in a non-Newton universe." -- Pavel Kroupa, astronomer, May 2009

It's no longer considered magic. A 323 year old quote doesn't represent what modern scientists think.

In fact it does.

 

[DDdreamer]

Gasp.

Are you telling me you actually disagree with infallible fundamentalist Scripture? That is pure heresy mate.

Wikipedia? Fundamentalist? scripture? Yeah, right.
Btw, I'm not saying I disagree with wiki. Just that I like to confirm it by checking other sources. I barely visit wiki anyway.

If it wasn't magic then what was the cause?

Evolution, simple as that.

Darwinists say otherwise. They say no humans that look like us in 201,000 B.C. and then suddenly, for no reason, humans like us 200,000 B.C. They say no humans that acted liked us 50,001 B.C. and then suddenly, for no reason. humans start behaving like us in 50,000 B.C.

Can you show me someone actually saying that?

So you claim.

Indeed I do. Definitions change. "Gay" and "queer" doesn't have quite the same definitions as they used to have, for instance.

There is no theory of gravity. There are many theories of gravity.

Well, there Newtons theory of gravity which still works well for the basic stuff. Then there's Einsteins theory of relativity which works for both the normal stuff and very big bodies/forces of gravity.

"The present does not seem to be the proper time to investigate the cause of the acceleration of natural motion [i.e., gravity], concering which various opinions have been expressed by various philosophers, some explaining it by attraction to the center, others to repulsion between the very small parts of the body, while still others attribute it to a certain stress in the surrounding medium which closes in behind the falling body and drives it from one of its positions to another." -- Galileo Galilei, physicist, 1638

Galileo knew far less than modern scientists. Science have taken huge steps forward since his days. Why bother quoting people whose knowledge of the subject is outdated?

However it hasn't advanced at all.

You must be kidding me? Hasn't advanced at all? Einstein redifined gravity with his theory of relativity!

It's only gotten more and more absurd with epicycles such as curved Riemannian Spacetime, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Dark Flow.

Can't say anything on this. Not that involved/interested in this whole dark matter/ dark energy stuff.

"Einstein’s theory of gravity is the craziest explanation of the phenomenon imaginable." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, 2001

Crazy? Maybe so, but evidently it works.

"In summation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy add up to the blank cheques that postpone the falsification of bankrupt theories." -- Ralph Sansbury, physicist, May 2009

"Dark matter is an excuse for the failure of gravitational theories." -- Stephen Smith, author, June 17th 2010

Can't say anything on this. Not that involved/interested in this whole dark matter/ dark energy stuff.

There was no "Theory of Gravity" in 1687.

The observation of gravity comes from ancient times.

"The atoms, as their own weight bears them down...." -- Lucretius, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

"Those bodies [atoms] acknowledge these three accidents, figure, magnitude, and gravity. Democritus acknowledged but two, magnitude and figure. Epicurus added the third, to wit, gravity; for he pronounced that it is necessary that bodies receive their motion from that impression which springs from gravity, otherwise they could not be moved." -- Plutarch, Opinions of the Philosophers, 1st century

"... to what Agent did the Ancients attribute the gravity of their atoms and what did they mean by calling God an harmony and comparing him & matter (the corporeal part of the Universe) to the God Pan and his Pipe?" -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 169-

I'll say it again: These people knew far less than modern scientists. Science have taken huge steps forward since their days. Why bother quoting people whose knowledge of the subject is outdated?

Newton's 1687 hypothesis is called the "Theory of Universal Gravitation."

And that hypothesis is not a theory.

"Newton attempted to explain the force of gravity on two hypotheses: the existence of a medium, or ether, and action at a distance. The first hypothesis he rejected as being physically absurd, the second as contrary to reason. Newton had, therefore, no theory of gravity." -- Melbourne G. Evans, physicist, 1958

It is rather a falsified hypothesis.

You must be kidding me. Gravity? Falsified hypothesis?

"The mathematical proofs of Newton are completely erroneous." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, polymath, 1942

Maybe so, but Newton lived hundreds of years ago. Scientists are much better informed nowadays.

"It was only the downfall of Newtonian theory in this century which made scientists realize that their standards of honesty had been utopian." -- Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973

He is most likely talking about when the theory of relativity was accepted as better than Newtons theory.

"Well, you know, if you flip a coin it doesn't come back down again if you're in space." -- Buzz Aldrin, astronaut, 2007

What does this have to do with anything? He's saying small objects experience no gravity in outer space. Completely compatible with our current theory of gravity.

"The only solution would be to reject Newton's classical theory of gravitation. We probably live in a non-Newton universe." -- Pavel Kroupa, astronomer, May 2009

Indeed, we live in universe that can be better explained by the theory of relativity proposed by Einstein. Newtons theory still works for the basic stuff though.

Besides, I fail to see how any of these show there to be several theories of gravity. Most quotes just critisize Newton.

In fact it does.

No it doesn't. I'll repeat it for you again: People at that time knew far less than modern scientists. Science have taken huge steps forward since their days. Why bother quoting people whose knowledge of the subject is outdated?

Wow, that was a tedious post to quote. I'm starting to see why people think that you're either a troll or just really dense.

/Marcus

 

[Targ]

Love the tags on this thread.

 

[Gracchus]

Are fish birds or dinosaurs?

No.

 

[Anaximander]

Anaximander, you are a new hero of mine.

Cool! Just be aware, though, I am a direct descendent of cromagnon.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry -- this is my first time through this thread:

When you state, "What animal do you claim gave birth to the first human" is another example of pure ignorance of biological evolution.

I've never understood the evolution mindset on this.

Something had to have given birth to the first human being.

Yes -- I'm familiar with the arguments that we appeared so gradually that it's impossible to tell; but that doesn't excuse the fact that something other than a human gave birth to the first human.

It just makes [evolutionary] sense that that would be the case.

 

[Anaximander]

Agonaces of Susa,

The reason why you do not understand how the phrase, "humans gave birth only to humans", is in perfect accordance with biological evolution is because you received your science education from someone else with a huge misconception, anti-evolution creationists. Even though you claim to have received your education from "evil"utionists, this misconception refutes your claim. <edit>
Your braincells perceive evolution occurring sequentially on individuals, as in an australopithecine eventually gave birth to a Homo habilis. Eventually a Homo habilis gives birth to a Homo erectus, and after many generations a Homo erectus gives birth to an archaic form of Homo sapien, etc. Your comments prove your idea of evolution is this because you have asked questions like "when did an ape give birth to a human?" This "evolutionary ladder" or "link in the chain of evolution" idea has been rejected by evolutionary biologists for over a century. The only people that keep this defunct version going are journalist when they claim, "Missing Link", and creationists.

Evolution ONLY occurs upon populations AND only if they possess variation in characteristics (alleles). If all individuals in a population were identical, evolution is impossible. What this means is all generations mate with their own "kind" while evolution is occurring. <edit>

best,

Well, if you do not understand what gave birth to the first human, again, it's because your understanding of evolution came from those very ignorant about the evolutionary process. My above comments just might help. Also, Susa - read it. I noticed to posted ignorance again after I posted this, so you read it also.

best,

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, if you do not understand what gave birth to the first human, again, it's because your understanding of evolution came from those very ignorant about the evolutionary process.

You're the one coming across as not understanding, Anaximander.

If you knew, I'm sure you would have told him by now.

Ask me where the first human came from, and I'll not only tell you, I'll give you the year, Who did it, how it was done, why it was done and even who the eyewitnesses were.

I'll even give you their names.

And if you want, I'll give you specific conversations from specific Persons prior to it.

You, by comparison, have nothing but rhetoric.

 

[Anaximander]

You're the one coming across as not understanding, Anaximander.

If you knew, I'm sure you would have told him by now.

Ask me where the first human came from, and I'll not only tell you, I'll give you the year, Who did it, how it was done, why it was done and even who the eyewitnesses were.

I'll even give you their names.

And if you want, I'll give you specific conversations from specific Persons prior to it.

You, by comparison, have nothing but rhetoric.

...while you have zero physical evidence for your upcoming explanation.
Well, the problem about your information on where and what year for the first human is that it not only conflicts with the physical evidence, it is also merely an interpretation of Genesis. Even though you may believe it, your interpretation is not the same thing as revelation (the true meaning behind His Word). There are actually dozens of literal interpretations, and we must accept that your interpretation is correct. Why? Because you believe it harder than an old earther like Susa? Is there a special gut feeling you get when the Holy Spirit guides your particular interpretation?

When God proclaimed, "Go forth and multiply and replenish the Earth", he said it first to Adam (not Noah). The most literal interpretation of replenish is "to refill". This infers other human beings lived before Adam. Go to ICR or AnswersInGenesis and they have a biased less literal alternative explanation for this, and if you post it, I will most likely explain why this is convoluted logic. My point is the most literal interpretation conforms to the discoveries in anthropology, yours does not.

Rhetoric means lack of evidence and that's just not the case in human evolution. Regardless of what the anti-evolution creationist literature states, genetics and the fossil record demonstrate it beyond all unbiased doubt. The problem for you is you must FIRST deny it, because it conflicts with your biblical interpretation. This is a product of your limbic system, not your cerebral cortex.

If you are honestly seeking the truth, then you will see it. I challenge you to read evolution literature other than from a biased anti-evolution source. My guess is you are not seeking the truth, but attempting to argue a set belief.

best,