The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

[hiphopopotomus]

But, the Bible talks about these in at least one place. Leviticus 11 concerns itself with dietary laws. These laws are organized into 3 separate categories:

Sorry to hear about your ancestors. mine were human.

That last line is what white South Africans used to justify apartheid, denial of basic human rights , declaring interracial marriage illegal and brutal treatment of black and mixed race South Africans.
It was also used before that to justify slavery and many other injustices.

And if you want examples of baby killing look up God.

My guess is you have a lot more in common with Islamic State Jihadist terrorists than you do with your fellow moderate Christian with those sorts of attitudes.

 

[Gene2memE]

The cause/reason for the initial spark of life is what's missing, the rest even with gaps and mistakes holds fast.

That's one of the things I think that creationists miss.

Even if the entire edifice of evolutionary theory was dis-proven overnight, what would replace it would be another scientific theory. You can't remove the scientific explanation of human origins with a non-scientific one. The only thing that would replace evolution would be a scientific theory of better predictive and descriptive power.

Creationism is many things, but it is not a scientific theory:
It is mostly untestable (and the little that is testable is laughably wrong).
It is so vague as to be mostly non-falsifiable.
It is eminently non-repeatable
It relies on divine suspension of the laws of nature as part and parcel of its narrative. How do you scientifically validate the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters? Or breathing the breath of life into a man made of dust? Or the creation of one living being from the rib of another. Or biological immortality until biological entities have knowledge of mortality?

Evolutionary biology doesn't have all the answers about the diversity and extent of life, nor does it have the answers about its origin. It doesn't pretend to either. We have clues about it, avenues of investigation and likely scenarios, but no solid answer. Yet.

Here's the thing though - its a work in progress. We may never solve abiogenesis - although I've got a feeling that we will, as its an interesting questions - but at least its a problem that is being work on.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Things that aren't alive don't become alive,

How did you conclude that?

As for macro and micro I mean thrm in the same sense as my undergrad in biology defines them.

Care to also actually give that definition?

They're basic terms anyone can look up.

I did and it doesn't say what you claim it says:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change.

Meaning that both are the exact same thing in terms of processes that make it happen. The main difference is the amount of generations.
The processes that gave polar bears a white fur are the exact same processes that turned a land animal into a whale.

Inches, becoming miles.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The reason it is called theory is because it has never been proven.

http://www.sciohio.org/evolfact.htm

I advice you to read this webpage. It's not long, only a couple of paragraphes. But it is important that you understand this common mistake among science deniers.

http://notjustatheory.com/

 

[DogmaHunter]

I detect a 'doubtful disputation' (Biblespeak for 'useless argument').

I detect intellectual dishonesty.

Answer his question.

Did "time" take you from LA to New York, or did the technology of the plane?

We live in a space-time continuum and for events to unfold, time needs to pass. What are you arguing about, really?

That time "happens"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Creation theory...wrong. Scientific theory...right.

As they are both theories

Creationism is not a theory. It's religious shenannigans.

Scientific theories are vastly different from religious ideas.

they are both wrong or both right because a theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.

Not in science.
In science, a theory is a body of knowledge. A supported explanation of a set of facts. A "graduated" hypothesis, if you will.

It is the highest level that any idea in science can be promoted to.

Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

Indeed.

Which is exactly why evolution qualifies as a scientific theory, while creationism does not.

But it seems that ignorance is an argument against the God you don't like and claim does not exist

I don't think I ever claimed that gods don't exist. Not accepting a statement saying "x exists" is not the same as accepting a statement saying the opposite.

As for what I "like" or not - that's quite irrelevant to what is actually true.

In all the years I have been discussing atheism and evolution I have not seen one intelligent comment about God from an atheist.

It's interesting that even after all these years, you still don't comprehend what atheism actually is and the same goes for evolution.

Perhaps you should take a step back and inform yourself first.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We live in a space-time continuum and for events to unfold, time needs to pass. What are you arguing about, really?

Bullseye.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I have done studies on the predation of deer by cougars, coyotes, and bobcat. We still have deer even with the ultimate hunter (humans) killing them in the tens of thousands every year.

The passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction. Deer in many areas were hunted to extinction until game laws were imposed. The gray wolf was hunted to extinction in many parts of the world. Man would have become a 'favorite' prey of carnivores; easy to catch and kill and thus would never have numbers sufficient to mount a suitable organized defense against them.

 

[crjmurray]

The passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction. Deer in many areas were hunted to extinction until game laws were imposed. The gray wolf was hunted to extinction in many parts of the world. Man would have become a 'favorite' prey of carnivores; easy to catch and kill and thus would never have numbers sufficient to mount a suitable organized defense against them.

You're right. That's why thousands of people a year are killed and eaten by sharks.

 

[paulm50]

The passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction. Deer in many areas were hunted to extinction until game laws were imposed. The gray wolf was hunted to extinction in many parts of the world. Man would have become a 'favorite' prey of carnivores; easy to catch and kill and thus would never have numbers sufficient to mount a suitable organized defense against them.

Do you evidence for this?

Very early on in our evolution of walking upright, we could take to the trees. We were intelligent enough to make sure there was somewhere we could climb.

If your scenario were right, there would be no tribes in Africa at all. They hunt in small groups.

Can you give evidence of an alternative reason we are here?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If your scenario were right, there would be no tribes in Africa at all. They hunt in small groups.

Many primitive African tribes number but a few hundred, this after millions of years of evolution.

 

[essentialsaltes]

In 73 years I have never eaten a single piece of raw food except things like lettuce, apples, bananas and such like.

You have done it so everyone has done it! Can I be so bold as to inform you that you do not base a case on one person's experience. Case closed.

Going back a step, the original claim was "Man cannot eat raw meat". So even a single example is sufficient to disprove it.

It's like saying "Heavier than air vehicles cannot fly". One airplane disproves this statement. Complaining that your 73-year-old car doesn't fly is irrelevant.

 

[Friar Frish]

Hello all.

I thought I might let the dust settle a bit before submitting a reply.

Me too.

You are neglecting to acknowledge the role our CULTURAL resources provide humanity.
We don't have poison glands, and can't run like a gazelle, but, we have tools, fire, language, management systems to organize us, and this all takes a long time to learn, hence the helplessness of human infants, as they must LEARN a ton of things before they can even walk...
While some of your observations are correct, your conclusions are suspect.

And, to the rest of those confused, evolution has been shown to work in human lifetimes, it doesn't take eons to produce results.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091116/full/news.2009.1089.html

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Fish is meat, and furthermore, we have a common ancestor with fish. .. 2 billion years ago.

Not 2 billion years ago. The oldest fossil of an aquatic vertebrate, Haikouichthys, is dated to ~518 million years ago.

Edited to add that "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin is an excellent book on evolution that is accessible to general readers. PBS also did a nature series of the same title with Prof. Shubin.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This usually happens, when the defense attorney doesn't use the available evidence to create reasonable doubt, if a person is innocent.

Or when exculpatory evidence is withheld from the defense.

Our justice system is not perfect, it involves human beings.

Imperfect human beings. There are those who could make any system work properly.

 

[bhsmte]

Or when exculpatory evidence is withheld from the defense.



Imperfect human beings. There are those who could make any system work properly.

If evidence is withheld and there is evidence of the same, real good chance of a successful appeal. In fact, that is why we have the appeal process.

And no, anything run by humans, will have some flaws.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

1) "Man's intellect" is a consequence of a hyperplasiaed brain. This in turn was a consequence of elevated brain temperatures caused by upright posture.

I've also heard an argument that the control of fire for cooking provided a large increase in available calories, allowing more energy resource for the brain - which paid back in more efficient and effective behaviours, increasing calorie availability further; and also reducing the time required and force necessary for chewing, which allowed a reduction in size of the jaw muscles (temporalis and masseter) and their attachment ridges on the skull, which, in turn, allowed an increase in cranial volume without significant increase in head width, which is partly constrained by the female pelvis... (I'm not convinced by the latter part, but it seems possible).

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

There are several on-line sources reviewing the genetic, and fossil evidence for human evolution which I have found to be well presented and accurate;

The Smithsonian Institution http://humanorigins.si.edu/
Arizona State University Institute of Human Origins https://iho.asu.edu/
Nature: Human Evolution http://www.nature.com/collections/ffjxdjnlcq
University of California http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Edited to add that "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin is an excellent book on evolution that is accessible to general readers. PBS also did a nature series of the same title with Prof. Shubin.

I saw the documentaries - the animations made it much easier to follow.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for review and a clean up of off topic posts.