I guess this is the current state of creationism

[Jose Fly]

I find it hard to believe that people are still trying to get @Deeje to understand what "theory" means in science. I guess some folks like banging their heads against walls.

 

[Kenny]

BTW, did I ever tell you before that I certainly didn't vote for Trump?

I'm waiting for you to evolve

Yep.

Remember, as a rule of thumb goes, it's survival and reproduction that are the driving force for future generations, so each species that still around today has somehow "found" its niche. And what may work for one species is not necessarily the same as what may work for another species.

If we think of ourselves as being the pinnacle of evolution, we are badly mistaken as other life forms predated us, and it's possible, unfortunately, that some day we may be removed and replaced.

Then follow the same logical conclusion of what we know is evolution...

We know that mutation is random, may happen to one but not to another. We know that the surroundings, the environmental pressures (like the beak of a bird that will grow when food is scarce), we know that one species in one area will not develop the same in another continent... so then we have whatever ancestor was, that developed into chimp, gorilla, orangutans and humans...

Am I suppose to believe that "all of a sudden" this process stopped with those who lived in Australia vs Africa vs Europe vs all the islands? And that somehow only ONE ancestor became a human and swam all over the islands and the world (when boats weren't even invented) and ALL progressed at the same progression and the same time? Or do we believe that there is indeed a "branching" into multiple types of humans each adapting differently than the one on the other continent... thus it is a logical conclusion that some humans are inferior than others (as per the the evolution progression that we agreed on).

It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development,(as per evolutionists - my add) has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.' (Sanger, "What Every Girl Should Know"1920, p. 47).

Sanger "there is sufficient evidence to lead us to believe that the so-called “borderline cases” are a greater menace than the out-and-out “defective delinquents” who can be supervised, controlled and prevented from procreating their kind. … the mental defective who is glib and plausible, bright looking and attractive, but with a mental vision of seven, eight or nine years, may not merely lower the whole level of intelligence in a school or in a society, but may be encouraged by church and state to increase and multiply until he dominates … an entire community. The presence in the public schools of the mentally defective children of men and women who should never have been parents is a problem that is becoming more and more difficult.’"Sanger, ref. 21, p. 115

Indeed, evolution is racist...

HOWEVER, when we approach the Bible it says "God made man in His image and in His likeness". Black, white, brown and any other color; rich or poor doesn't change it; Africa, South America or the Antarctic -- they all have the same humanoid DNA and the same value.

Game,Set, Match

 

[metis]

I'm waiting for you to evolve

For me to support Trump would be devolution, not evolution.

Am I suppose to believe that "all of a sudden" this process stopped with those who lived in Australia vs Africa vs Europe vs all the islands? And that somehow only ONE ancestor became a human and swam all over the islands and the world (when boats weren't even invented) and ALL progressed at the same progression and the same time? Or do we believe that there is indeed a "branching" into multiple types of humans each adapting differently than the one on the other continent...

Definitely the latter, but the varieties of current humans are but a fraction of what were once here because the vast majority basically got wiped out one way or another over millions of years with the exception of Homo sapiens sapiens and some Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

thus it is a logical conclusion that some humans are inferior than others (as per the the evolution progression that we agreed on).

False analysis.

If I took you out to the Kalahari Desert where the Bushmen live, you (nor I) would not likely survive because you would be of "inferior intellect" as compared to them. Or if we went to the Arctic with only a spear and an igloo, we wouldn't likely survived, and yet I studied the Polar Inuit for many years. Book learning is one thing, but living as an Inuit is quite another.

When it comes to speed, who's inferior, you or a cheetah? with reproduction, you or a rabbit? [hopefully you!!! ].

Indeed, evolution is racist...

Did you notice the date? Doncha think maybe some things have improved since then, such as our knowledge about different cultures and knowledge about the effect of "brain patterning"?

Game,Set, Match

Don't hurt yourself because you're in the wrong game-- it's 2017, not 1920.

 

[Kenny]

Definitely the latter, but the varieties of current humans are but a fraction of what were once here because the vast majority basically got wiped out one way or another over millions of years with the exception of Homo sapiens sapiens and some Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

I disagree... You are going by what "bones" are available an assuming they were eradicated. We are constantly finding more bones and I make no bones about it!

Basically all you are talking about is the main continents where Neadethalensis were and the Homo sapiens. Certainly you can't say that the Homo sapiens traveled to Australia by.... airplane? Cruiseliner? The Pesse Canoe will hardly reach Hawaii.

thus it is a logical conclusion that some humans are inferior than others (as per the the evolution progression that we agreed on).

False analysis.

If I took you out to the Kalahari Desert where the Bushmen live, you (nor I) would not likely survive because you would be of "inferior intellect" as compared to them. Or if we went to the Arctic with only a spear and an igloo, we wouldn't likely survived, and yet I studied the Polar Inuit for many years. Book learning is one thing, but living as an Inuit is quite another.

When it comes to speed, who's inferior, you or a cheetah? with reproduction, you or a rabbit? [hopefully you!!! ].

I disagree. It would be more logical, IMV, that you have a false analysis.

OF COURSE if I went under water the fish would survive better. And if confronted by a cheetah, he would run faster. And if I were in the bush, I would die.

But let's be honest... If I went underwater, I would have a set of tanks and a spear gun, fish for dinner... if I went to Africa, I would have a rifle and and a shotgun - Cheetah dead. If I were at the Kalahari Desert, I would have a couple of jeeps, water, and a supply of food (that the Bushmen spend all day looking for). Why? Because, on the evolutionary scale, I have "evolved" better. More brain and less brawn.

Did you notice the date? Doncha think maybe some things have improved since then, such as our knowledge about different cultures and knowledge about the effect of "brain patterning"?

Don't hurt yourself because you're in the wrong game-- it's 2017, not 1920.

They were more honest then. Now they have refined it to sound like its different when the concept really hasn't changed.

Evolution is about species evolving differently. To say that it is "different" for humans is to violate the concept of evolution.

What happened is that they realized that ALL men are exactly the same and had to come up with a different construct to fit their model.

EVERY OTHER SPECIES just died away and only the homo sapiens survived. How convenient. How they got to Australia and Hawaii? They swam like a fish, of course.

No... I think if people want to be a monkey's uncle... they can have it. I've evolved into a child of God instead.

 

[metis]

I disagree... You are going by what "bones" are available an assuming they were eradicated.

Not "assuming" anything but going with what the fossil evidence is pretty much telling us.

Basically all you are talking about is the main continents where Neadethalensis were and the Homo sapiens. Certainly you can't say that the Homo sapiens traveled to Australia by.... airplane? Cruiseliner? The Pesse Canoe will hardly reach Hawaii.

They walked to Australia.

Getting pretty snarky, aren't ya.

Because, on the evolutionary scale, I have "evolved" better. More brain and less brawn.

Why do you say that's "better" in the long run? If we nuke ourselves into oblivion because we got so much "brain", my guess is probably at least some of the cockroaches and rats will still survive.

"Better" really only works in the context of adapting to one's environment, but even that can work against an organism if they're not versatile enough to change if the environment changes.

Evolution is about species evolving differently. To say that it is "different" for humans is to violate the concept of evolution.

Why do you having me saying anything different?

What happened is that they realized that ALL men are exactly the same and had to come up with a different construct to fit their model.

How could you possibly tell that "ALL men are exactly the same" when it's clear that all men are not exactly the same?

EVERY OTHER SPECIES just died away and only the homo sapiens survived. How convenient.

Snarky #2.

Humans tend to kill each other or out-compete against each other, and they have gotten much better at it over time-- unfortunately.

How they got to Australia and Hawaii?

Australia I explained and Hawaii was by boat, in all likelihood, from the Polynesian islands to the south.

No... I think if people want to be a monkey's uncle... they can have it.

I'd rather be related to some monkeys than some people.

 

[Kenny]

Not "assuming" anything but going with what the fossil evidence is pretty much telling us.

They walked to Australia.

Getting pretty snarky, aren't ya.

Why do you say that's "better" in the long run? If we nuke ourselves into oblivion because we got so much "brain", my guess is probably at least some of the cockroaches and rats will still survive.

"Better" really only works in the context of adapting to one's environment, but even that can work against an organism if they're not versatile enough to change if the environment changes.

Why do you having me saying anything different?

How could you possibly tell that "ALL men are exactly the same" when it's clear that all men are not exactly the same?

Snarky #2.

Humans tend to kill each other or out-compete against each other, and they have gotten much better at it over time-- unfortunately.

Australia I explained and Hawaii was by boat, in all likelihood, from the Polynesian islands to the south.

I'd rather be related to some monkeys than some people.

LOL... I'm not trying to be snarky. Forgive me if it came out like that.

How could you possibly tell that "ALL men are exactly the same" when it's clear that all men are not exactly the same?

Because I can take an Australian Aborigine baby, a Brazilian cannibal's baby that has been outside of civilization for millennium, and whosoever and put him in my house and he will be just as smart and have the same capacity as anyone else.

To be honest, even with all that you have said, it still doesn't negate my position and there are too many suppositions for it to be cemented as truth. i.e. the homo sapiens would have to have killed ALL the Neaderthalis all over the world... we have invasive species that would never have been on a continent if a human hadn't brought it. It is highly subject to doubt to think that the homo sapiens killed all the competition IMO in all continents.

 

[metis]

it still doesn't negate my position and there are too many suppositions for it to be cemented as truth. i.e. the homo sapiens would have to have killed ALL the Neaderthalis all over the world

Who said they were all killed off?

homo sapiens killed all the competition IMO in all continents.

I didn't say that, and we didn't.

LOL... I'm not trying to be snarky. Forgive me if it came out like that.

Forgiven.

Gotta go.

 

[Kenny]

Who said they were all killed off?

you didn't... you had an "or".

 

[Deeje]

If he said that (and without a source I doubt it), that would make him the idiot that he is not (or it's way out of context and he meant this in a broader sense of public discourse)

Will the Richard Dawkins Foundation do?
Is it a Theory? Is it a Law? No, it’s a fact. | Richard Dawkins Foundation

germs are a theory, there is no getting around acknowledging germ theory, and germs are also a fact. There are many, many other theories of science, that are theories, but are also fact. Such as, I doubt you are dumb enough to light a match in front a tank expelling oxygen, and that is because you know, based on the theory of the combustibility of oxygen, that it will be a fact that lighting that match will turn you into a crispy critter.

None of them are still "theory" like evolution is a "theory".....they have been proven. I covered this before.

But when we use the word "theory", this often includes "axioms", which pretty much are "facts".

Is evolution a "fact"? Yes, because the basis of the word "evolution" is change ("evolve"), and we well know that change takes place. Is the concept of organisms evolving a "fact"? Of course it is since it's been observed over and over again.

"Organisms evolving is a fact"? That depends on how you understand the word "evolution"? The video posted by Sapiens exposes this flaw in the definition. Adaptation is what science can see and prove (to an extent)....these are small differences that produce variety within a taxonomic family, but macro-evolution is not provable by any scientific method that is applied to other branches of science. There is no way to demonstrate that adaptation has ever moved outside of any "family" of creatures to produce a different "family" of creatures thousands or millions of years later. The most you can see is a slight modification of the original....nothing more.

 

[sayak83]

I'm waiting for you to evolve


Then follow the same logical conclusion of what we know is evolution...

We know that mutation is random, may happen to one but not to another. We know that the surroundings, the environmental pressures (like the beak of a bird that will grow when food is scarce), we know that one species in one area will not develop the same in another continent... so then we have whatever ancestor was, that developed into chimp, gorilla, orangutans and humans...

Am I suppose to believe that "all of a sudden" this process stopped with those who lived in Australia vs Africa vs Europe vs all the islands? And that somehow only ONE ancestor became a human and swam all over the islands and the world (when boats weren't even invented) and ALL progressed at the same progression and the same time? Or do we believe that there is indeed a "branching" into multiple types of humans each adapting differently than the one on the other continent... thus it is a logical conclusion that some humans are inferior than others (as per the the evolution progression that we agreed on).



Indeed, evolution is racist...

HOWEVER, when we approach the Bible it says "God made man in His image and in His likeness". Black, white, brown and any other color; rich or poor doesn't change it; Africa, South America or the Antarctic -- they all have the same humanoid DNA and the same value.

Game,Set, Match

Modern humans evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago and expanded into Asia 100,00 years. From there they went to Australia (by boat) 60,000 years ago... replaced Neanderthals in Europe 35000 years ago and entered America 20,000 years ago through Siberia. Thus there has not been enough time for humans in different continents to evolve separately after they colonized them.

Fossil and genetic data has confirmed the above timelines.

 

[Kenny]

Modern humans evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago and expanded into Asia 100,00 years. From there they went to Australia (by boat) 60,000 years ago... replaced Neanderthals in Europe 35000 years ago and entered America 20,000 years ago through Siberia. Thus there has not been enough time for humans in different continents to evolve separately after they colonized them.

Fossil and genetic data has confirmed the above timelines.

How do we know they went by boat? The oldest boat on record was only 8,000 years ago. Boats were made 60,000 years ago? Stone age lasted until about 8700 BCE.

World's Oldest Ship?? - Archaeology Magazine Archive

Australia to New Zealand is 6,000 miles... doesn't it seem a little far fetched that they could travel 6,000 miles on the high seas and actually make it 60,000 years ago?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

None of them are still "theory"

Here it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_diseasese
The germ theory of disease states that many diseases are caused by microorganisms.

Will the Richard Dawkins Foundation do?
Is it a Theory? Is it a Law? No, it’s a fact. | Richard Dawkins Foundation

It's funny you quote that:

Let’s sacrifice a pawn for strategic advantage and hammer home a clear message that everyone can understand, and which is undeniably true in the everyday sense. Evolution is a fact.
Evolution is a fact.

It's as I suspected, he didn't mean that literally it is not a theory, but rather a frustration of common discourse where people would say evolution is "just a theory" but not a single person who says that would dare jump off a 20-story building and expect to live - after all, gravity too should by that logic be "just a theory."

 

[sayak83]

How do we know they went by boat? The oldest boat on record was only 8,000 years ago. Boats were made 60,000 years ago? Stone age lasted until about 8700 BCE.

World's Oldest Ship?? - Archaeology Magazine Archive

Australia to New Zealand is 6,000 miles... doesn't it seem a little far fetched that they could travel 6,000 miles on the high seas and actually make it 60,000 years ago?

No. During the last ice age, so much water was locked up in the glaciers covering North America and Northern Europe that Indonesia was directly connected to Asia in what is called the Sunda peninsula, and was either directly connected to Australia or separated by a very shallow stretch of sea which could be crossed with even log barges at low tides.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...below-present-during-the-last-glacial-maximum

 

[Looncall]

How do we know they went by boat? The oldest boat on record was only 8,000 years ago. Boats were made 60,000 years ago? Stone age lasted until about 8700 BCE.

World's Oldest Ship?? - Archaeology Magazine Archive

Australia to New Zealand is 6,000 miles... doesn't it seem a little far fetched that they could travel 6,000 miles on the high seas and actually make it 60,000 years ago?

Polynesians carried out epic voyages such as those. Why couldn't others? Your incredulity isn't evidence.

 

[metis]

you didn't... you had an "or".

It is at least hypothetically possible that some early human groups may well have been killed off or out-competed but this did not happen with the Neanderthals as it turned out.

For the longest time we couldn't figure out whether they were indeed wiped out or whether they may have intermarried with Hss, and it turned out that the latter is true. The Tabun child fossil that was discovered several decades ago gave us our first clue since it had both Hss abd Hsn characteristics, but then in more recent times the genome testing has confirmed it, with Asian populations having the highest incidence of Hsn genes.

I'll be back shortly to revisit a couple of posts. Betcha can't wait!

 

[metis]

The most you can see is a slight modification of the original....nothing more.

False, as it has been explained many times before, and with links provided that you just ignore.

 

[Kenny]

It is at least hypothetically possible that some early human groups may well have been killed off or out-competed but this did not happen with the Neanderthals as it turned out.

For the longest time we couldn't figure out whether they were indeed wiped out or whether they may have intermarried with Hss, and it turned out that the latter is true. The Tabun child fossil that was discovered several decades ago gave us our first clue since it had both Hss abd Hsn characteristics, but then in more recent times the genome testing has confirmed it, with Asian populations having the highest incidence of Hsn genes.

I'll be back shortly to revisit a couple of posts. Betcha can't wait!

Do you mean the Taung skull?

 

[metis]

Do you mean the Taung skull?

No as that's an Aa. The one I'm looking for is that of a child born in the Middle East whereas he and a Neanderthal female and Cro-Magnon male are found together.

Do you mean the Taung skull?

No, here: Tabun Cave - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

Indeed, evolution is racist...

HOWEVER, when we approach the Bible it says "God made man in His image and in His likeness". Black, white, brown and any other color; rich or poor doesn't change it; Africa, South America or the Antarctic -- they all have the same humanoid DNA and the same value.

Except that throughout most of the last almost 2000 years, Christianity not only allowed racism, it actually supported it.

Up until the mid-1800's, slaves in largely Christian countries were only people of "color". The N.T. states that slaves are to obey their masters, and nothing there says that slavery is to be ended. It was the Society of Friends ("Quakers"), both in England and the U.S., that finally broke ranks and demanded an end to slavery because of their belief in the "inner light" supplied equally by God, according to their theology.

However, conservative Protestant elements fought this trend as we saw in the American South, thus justifying their continued use of slavery on biblical grounds as well as economic. It was the more liberal theologies in the North that finally broke away from that, thus causing splits between their churches and their Southern counterparts.

Even long after the end of slavery, states passed laws prohibiting interracial marriages, some as late as the 1960's, and this was justified on the biblical issue of "kinds". Some states passed laws prohibiting rights guaranteed to whites, such as Amerindians not being able to buy alcohol even in the 1960's.

I left the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in mostly because if its racism and anti-science positions. I personally know a Lutheran pastor who was fired from his congregation in the late 1970's because he dared to call racism a "sin".

The above was not caused by beliefs in evolution but because of mostly Christian religious beliefs mixed in with cultural influences. Sorry, but this is the history of it in a nutshell.

I think if people want to be a monkey's uncle... they can have it. I've evolved into a child of God instead.

Not of you're still supporting Trump.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm 50 years old, which means I've seen how creationism has evolved (HAH) over the last several decades. I can remember elementary school in the 1970's where teaching Christianity and the Bible in a public school was just assumed and there was little if any controversy. I remember in 4th grade us doing a skit about a newspaper reporter doing interviews right before Noah's flood. I remember in middle school and high school us not covering evolution in science classes because (according to the teachers) it was "too controversial" and some of them specifically saying that since it contradicted the Bible, it was necessarily wrong. I even remember in high school a couple of mandatory assemblies where "scientific creationists" would give presentations on young-earth creationism and how "true science" supported it.

As I was finishing up college the ID creationism movement was just beginning and by the time I started working it was getting a fair bit of interest from the media. Of course ID creationism died a quick death in the Dover, PA trial in 2005.

So over my lifetime, I've seen creationism go from overtly teaching "this is what the Bible says so it's true", to "the accounts in the Bible are scientifically supported", to "teach the controversy", to "complexity = a designer", to it's current state.

And what is its current state? Judging by the consistent theme I see from creationists in this and other forums, it seems to have been reduced to the rather simplistic argument of "challenge evolutionists to prove their claims to a 100% degree of certainty, and when they don't do that declare it to be a faith, no different than any other belief system".

That appears to be it. I've honestly not seen much of anything else from creationists in quite a while. I think we science advocates should take this as a positive development. This really is all they have left, which means the current declining trend is very likely to continue.

I am 67 and I don't remember Christianity or any other religion being presented in a classroom. We did, of course, say the Pledge of Allegiance, so there is that. But memory fades, perhaps there were other references made to a god.

As to proving anything to a 100% certainty, good luck with that, right? Of course, if Creationists could prove anything with 100% certainty, then evolution would have been a non-issue long ago.

I don't even ask that of them.....All I want is a cohesive scientifically based theory of creationism that accounts for all of the existing data. I'm still waiting................