If you say so. When can we expect to see it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Disproof of Evolution
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
If a person is born with a tail, are they still human? What is a severe change? We talking tentacles and Marvel superheroes or what? Is a person with mental retardation or missing limbs no longer human?
Or even bother to actually use it.
Do you realize that you have already defined the first human and modern humans as humans in your...scenario? You are not making a comparison between different things. Sounds like a set up contrived to give the answer you want.
Not sure what Bob, Alice, John and Steve are doing here. Sounds like they have some issues to work out, but I see nothing useful from their inclusion here.
Wait! A boa constrictor can also not give oxygen to Alice. Bob is human. Therefore the boa is human.!?
Adolf Hitler is not human?
Just interesting how all these unrelated injections are thrown in here sort of willy nilly.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
You demonstrate serious disrespect for others by DEMANDING their respect from the start. A respectful person would try and earn that respect, not demand it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you really don't. You have a hilariously wrong "disproof" of evoluiton. You need to work on those logic skills more than just a little bit.
We all do. To me, humankind is the collection of human beings alive and deceased. Birth happens to be an important step in producing new people, but even if they were formed artificially in a vat, if they had human DNA, they're part of humankind, so birth doesn't belong in the definition.
Proof is that which convinces. It's wrong to say that you have proved something if you already believed it and convinced nobody else to believe it. I liken it to a comedian that got no laughs but says he's hysterically funny anyway. If you don't make anyone laugh, you weren't funny, and if your argument didn't convince anybody, you have proven nothing.
I haven't seen anything from you on these threads that changed my mind in the areas of math or physics. Proving is a cooperative effort between two or more people, one doing the proving, and the other having his mind changed by the proof.
Notice, incidentally, that what is proved doesn't necessarily have to be correct. If you have a wrong idea and make a specious argument that convinced me, you have proven your point to me. You would say so, and so would I. All that others can do is to say that they weren't convinced and nothing was proved to them.
Two different things are being called respect, and you get one of them automatically, whereas the other has to be earned.
You have a right to express your opinion and to be treated civilly even when being disagreed with, that is, your rights are respected (or not if you are treated that way) from your first post. You don't have to earn that, although you can lose it.
But respect also means having a high regard for, and that has to be earned by past performance. If you want to be respected for math and science achievements, you'll need to show what they are. None of us here has any credentials apart from our posted words. Those who have earned respect (second definition, regarded highly) have done so by their words written here, not claims of degrees, abilities, accomplishments, or credentials, and certainly not by demanding it.
Lack of respect is not disrespect. When we meet, I neither respect you as an individual nor disrespect you (second definition), just as I neither trust nor distrust you. With time, I may come to respect and/or trust you, or disrespect you and/or distrust you.
Belief is like that as well. When you make a claim that might or might not be true and about something which I have no prior knowledge, I neither believe nor disbelieve you. With time, I may gravitate to one of those positions depending on how much evidence there is to support one view or the other.
These are all examples of agnosticism - holding a middle ground because you don't have enough information to decide yet.
Regarding the arguments people have been making about there being no first day of being old, or when was the first human born, look at the sorites paradox:
From Sorites Paradox (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The sorites paradox originated in an ancient puzzle that appears to be generated by vague terms, viz., terms with unclear (“blurred” or “fuzzy”) boundaries of application. ‘Bald’, ‘heap’, ‘tall’, ‘old’, and ‘blue’ are prime examples of vague terms: no clear line divides people who are bald from people who are not, or blue objects from green (hence not blue), or old people from middle-aged (hence not old). Because the predicate ‘heap’ has unclear boundaries, it seems that no single grain of wheat can make the difference between a number of grains that does, and a number that does not, make a heap. Therefore, since one grain of wheat does not make a heap, it follows that two grains do not; and if two do not, then three do not; and so on. This reasoning leads to the absurd conclusion that no number of grains of wheat make a heap.
The puzzle can be expressed as an argument most simply using modus ponens:
What conclusion should we draw from this untoward result? Is there something wrong with the paradoxical argument, or does the use of vague predicates really lead to absurdity?[1] In part because we use these ordinary words successfully all the time, and do not normally land in absurdities like the ones above, most theorists of vagueness suppose that the paradox is solvable, i.e., that the paradoxical argument is defective and we can discover the defect. In what follows we consider some of the principal attempts to solve it.
The sorites paradox originated in an ancient puzzle that appears to be generated by vague terms, viz., terms with unclear (“blurred” or “fuzzy”) boundaries of application. ‘Bald’, ‘heap’, ‘tall’, ‘old’, and ‘blue’ are prime examples of vague terms: no clear line divides people who are bald from people who are not, or blue objects from green (hence not blue), or old people from middle-aged (hence not old). Because the predicate ‘heap’ has unclear boundaries, it seems that no single grain of wheat can make the difference between a number of grains that does, and a number that does not, make a heap. Therefore, since one grain of wheat does not make a heap, it follows that two grains do not; and if two do not, then three do not; and so on. This reasoning leads to the absurd conclusion that no number of grains of wheat make a heap.
The puzzle can be expressed as an argument most simply using modus ponens:
- 1 grain of wheat does not make a heap.
- If 1 grain doesn’t make a heap, then 2 grains don’t.
- If 2 grains don’t make a heap, then 3 grains don’t.
- …
- If 999,999 grains don’t make a heap, then 1 million grains don’t.
- 1 million grains don’t make a heap.
What conclusion should we draw from this untoward result? Is there something wrong with the paradoxical argument, or does the use of vague predicates really lead to absurdity?[1] In part because we use these ordinary words successfully all the time, and do not normally land in absurdities like the ones above, most theorists of vagueness suppose that the paradox is solvable, i.e., that the paradoxical argument is defective and we can discover the defect. In what follows we consider some of the principal attempts to solve it.
Last edited:
Irate State
Äkta människor
Why so scared of natural sciences? It's flabbergasting, tbh. And a little bit comical.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Have you ever been in a house built in the middle ages or even the 16th Century? Possibly if you live in the US, you may not have.
The reason I ask is that the ceilings are so low. In other words humans have evolved to be much taller in the last 1000 years.
We are still evolving as we speak.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That may not be evolution so much as it is nutrition. Japan had a "growth spurt" after WWII. There used to be jokes about how short Japanese people are but that is not the case any longer:
Tokyo Journal; The Japanese, It Seems, Are Outgrowing Japan (Published 2001).
In 50 years, according to statistics kept by the Ministry of Education, the average height of Japanese 11-year-olds has increased by more than 5 1/2 inches. The height of girls, who grow faster at that age, meanwhile, has increased even more.
Fifty years of child height and weight in Japan and South Korea: Contrasting secular trend patterns analyzed by SITAR
Objectives Japanese and South Koreans have traditionally been shorter than Europeans, but have recently become appreciably taller. The aim was to quantify the secular trend patterns in height and weight growth in the two countries over 50 years using the SITAR growth curve model.
Hmm, that source says that diet does not appear to be the cause, instead it is long bone growth in infancy that starts the process. At any rate, overall better health care and diet does appear to have caused a significant growth spurt in those peoples.
Altfish
Veteran Member
But surely evolution is about adapting to new surroundings/environments - eg improved food availability
Not all adaptation is biological evolution, which requires a change in the gene pool. When we moved from sea level to a mile high, our physiologies changed (more red cells in any given volume of blood, or higher hematocrit) to adapt to the lower atmospheric oxygen tension, but this also was not biological evolution.
Wow! A tautology! You don't get to see those very often, boy-oh-boy!
And the conclusion that you think it leads you to is just as false as it would be in every other tautological argument.
That will be my final contribution to this thread, as I've learned from experience what comes from arguing with those who, above all, have zero wish to learn anything. .
Although...umm...that's not the only reason for lower ceilings.
Sorry, I realise that's tangental, but I couldn't quite let that slide...lol
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is a change in the genome. People getting taller does not appear to be a change in the genome. There is a another cause driving it.
Suave
Simulated character
I respectfully disagree with your definition of humankind as defined by a human gives birth to a human,, this flawed definition being the basis of your disproof of evolution results in the invalidation of your argument against evolution. I do hereby consider your definition of humankind to be invalidated by the speciation of humans from a couple of non-human Australopithecus hetero zygotes, who had the same type of chromosome rearrangements formed by the fusion of whole long arms of two acrocentric chromosomes, mating together and reproducing viable as well as fertile offspring with forty-six chromosomes. This first generation of Homo habilis then may have likely incestuously bred with each other and reproduced the next subsequent generation of Homo habilis.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
In any case, he has not originated from God. But humans have originated from God.
What? Then you are saying that he is not human? I have no reason to doubt that Adolf Hitler was a human.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
How many of these silly threads do you create on average per month?
Always hilarious when a creationist comes up with the arrogant title indicating that he is going to disprove a well-established scientific theory like evolution, only to find out IN THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the post that he doesn't even understand the basics of the basics of said theory.
There's no such thing as "the very first human".
Evolution is a gradual process that works on populations, not on individuals.
When you would line up all your ancestors, all the way back to single celled eukaryotes about a billion years ago and work your way backwards, there is no "border" there where you would say "this one is a human, the next one is not a human".
Here's a nice illustration that you have probably seen a bazillion times already and ignored every single time:
1st-grade-level-newsflash: evolution = a gradual process
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
And tetrapods give birth to tetrapods
And mammals give birth to mammals.
And primates give birth to primates.
And humans indeed give birth to humans.
A human is not going to give birth to a non-human.
A primate is not going to give birth to a non-primate.
At no point in history did that ever happen.
Humans are primates, mammals and tetrapods.
It's the law of monofy. Species don't outgrow their ancestry.
All descendants of primates will be primates (or sub-species thereof). Humans are a primate sub-species.
All descendants of humans will be humans (or sub-species thereof).
If you would have the slightest clue of evolutionary biology, you would off course know this.
You would also know this if you would pay the smallest amount of attention possible to the responses you get in your silly threads, as all this has been explained countless of times to you.