creation vs evolution.

[Punk Hazard]

Dawinism and evolution go hand in hand, yet based on that you want to go completely away from that. You want to reward the underachiever to compensate for his ineptitude. That's a sick unrealistic mindset

We as human beings have evolved past the point of "Survival of the fittest" and cold, black and white concepts like Darwinism. Does Darwinism exist in nature? Yes, and it applies. And so does the lack of critical thinking and reliance completely on instinct in millions of species but we ignore that as well because life is better that way. Animals don't really have a choice in whether or not Darwinism affects them, but we do. If you really wanna go the "Darwinism is absolute" route, what's stopping a bigger, stronger person from barging into your house, killing you, and taking all of your stuff then saying "Hey that's Darwinism man" to the police?

 

[slimreaper]

We as human beings have evolved past the point of "Survival of the fittest" and cold, black and white concepts like Darwinism. Does Darwinism exist in nature? Yes, and it applies. And so does the lack of critical thinking and reliance completely on instinct in millions of species but we ignore that as well because life is better that way. Animals don't really have a choice in whether or not Darwinism affects them, but we do. If you really wanna go the "Darwinism is absolute" route, what's stopping a bigger, stronger person from barging into your house, killing you, and taking all of your stuff then saying "Hey that's Darwinism man" to the police?

Social darwinism is what pertains to this time. As a society one group proves superior, yet you want to hold those people back in the name of equality (a lie). All you will accomplish if flipping the power control to the other, it can't be shared.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Social darwinism is what pertains to this time. As a society one group proves superior, yet you want to hold those people back in the name of equality (a lie). All you will accomplish if flipping the power control to the other, it can't be shared.

Says you. It ain't possible, so I'ma keep on speaking for it. Darwinism, in any form, is horseshit for human beings. We're smarter than that, and it's a damn good thing more and more people are starting to realize that, and that one day, all the people like you will die and the world will keep spinning. So go ahead and cling to social darwinism. Next time you lose something and it ends up in someone's hands, just chock it up to him being better than you.

 

[BrillyMac]

So, the entire world is the virgin Mary who has never seen a prophet? Why is seeing a prophet equivalent enough to *** for it to be a metaphor? Why did Moses smoke so much burning bush?

It's Moses talked to a burning bush. I think you had that wrong. But the bush was supposed to represent God and it being on fire represent his controlled anger

 

[slimreaper]

Says you. It ain't possible, so I'ma keep on speaking for it. Darwinism, in any form, is horseshit for human beings. We're smarter than that, and it's a damn good thing more and more people are starting to realize that, and that one day, all the people like you will die and the world will keep spinning.

You're just a delusional as these religious affiliates. You actually believe that power can be balanced equally between two or more groups with different features when that has never been seen in human history.

I hate a communist

 

[FreakensteinAG]

There are thousands of instances where we interpreted scientific data incorrectly and had to change verdicts

And this is destructive of our premise how? We as scientists march into research with the goals of actively destroying scientific hypotheses and scientific theories, always putting them to the test. If and when they come out smelling like a rose, the hypotheses and theories hold truer and have more evidence on their tables. This is not true for any religion, which are stagnant and keep their premises as fact despite conflicting results.

Science will also tell you that all groups of people are un-equal yet you choose to ignore that and be a liberal. I love a good hypocrite

Every person is different yet undeniably from the same species; this is completely different from "unequal". This is what the conservatives of the past said and justified slavery with this mindset. We as Progressives chose to accept our differences and put into law Civil Rights Acts, despite opponents from the past deeming this sinful due to religious text. Exactly who is wrong here?

 

[Punk Hazard]

You're just a delusional as these religious affiliates. You actually believe that power can be balanced equally between two or more groups with different features when that has never been seen in human history.

I hate a communist

I wish I could invest as much emotion into you as you have to me.

Maybe it can't, maybe it can. Whether or not it ends up so, I'd rather say I was on the side that tried, rather than on the side of the dicks who wanna look edgy by bashing on equality movements. I'm sure one day everyone will think you're as cool as you want your avatar to look.

 

[slimreaper]

And this is destructive of our premise how? We as scientists march into research with the goals of actively destroying scientific hypotheses and scientific theories, always putting them to the test. If and when they come out smelling like a rose, the hypotheses and theories hold truer and have more evidence on their tables. This is not true for any religion, which are stagnant and keep their premises as fact despite conflicting results.



Every person is different yet undeniably from the same species; this is completely different from "unequal". This is what the conservatives of the past said and justified slavery with this mindset. We as Progressives chose to accept our differences and put into law Civil Rights Acts, despite opponents from the past deeming this sinful due to religious text. Exactly who is wrong here?

Lets get one thing out of the way, me poking holes in your argument isn't me being pro religon.

Secondly, all you will do by striving for equality is one of two thing as history tells us

1. Both groups will be subject to a third party rule (stalin, hitler, NK, China)
2. One group will take power and suppress the other.

There is no other way this can go down. So now you are just splitting hairs about who you want in power. Personally I choose my people, I respect the decision of others who choose their people. But be up front about it. Don't do it in the name of equalizing people.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Lets get one thing out of the way, me poking holes in your argument isn't me being pro religon.

Secondly, all you will do by striving for equality is one of two thing as history tells us

1. Both groups will be subject to a third party rule (stalin, hitler, NK, China)
2. One group will take power and suppress the other.

There is no other way this can go down. So now you are just splitting hairs about who you want in power. Personally I choose my people, I respect the decision of others who choose their people. But be up front about it. Don't do it in the name of equalizing people.

1. You haven't been poking holes in anything except your own flawed ideologies , making this much easier than I expected. Nothing of mine so far has been fallacious in the slightest!

2. How is anything here about Evolution and Creationism? We've suddenly spouted off about political parties and Sociology. I want to talk about Biology dammit!

Is there anything specific anybody has a question about Biology? I am the man to go to.

 

[Bronze]

I believe in both. I believe that God created us and I believe that organism evolve overtime, but not in that humans evolved from a common ancestor. There is still no presence of fossil from the common ancestor.

 

[slimreaper]

1. You haven't been poking holes in anything except your own flawed ideologies , making this much easier than I expected. Nothing of mine so far has been fallacious in the slightest!

2. How is anything here about Evolution and Creationism? We've suddenly spouted off about political parties and Sociology. I want to talk about Biology dammit!

"You don't need to interpret science". That's incorrect. Lawyered

I wish I could invest as much emotion into you as you have to me.

Maybe it can't, maybe it can. Whether or not it ends up so, I'd rather say I was on the side that tried, rather than on the side of the dicks who wanna look edgy by bashing on equality movements. I'm sure one day everyone will think you're as cool as you want your avatar to look.

Id rather be on the side that watched my predecessors fail, and instead of being wilfully ignorant, learned from their mistakes.
And my "edgy" avatar is that of a dead man and one of my heroes

 

[Punk Hazard]

"You don't need to interpret science". That's incorrect. Lawyered


Id rather be on the side that watched my predecessors fail, and instead of being wilfully ignorant, learned from their mistakes.
And my "edgy" avatar is that of a dead man and one of my heroes

He'd probably do backflips in his coffin if he could read your posts.

 

[slimreaper]

He'd probably do backflips in his coffin if he could read your posts.

Who know. That doesn't change the music he played

 

[FreakensteinAG]

I believe in both. I believe that God created us and I believe that organism evolve overtime, but not in that humans evolved from a common ancestor. There is still no presence of fossil from the common ancestor.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

"You don't need to interpret science". That's incorrect. Lawyered


Id rather be on the side that watched my predecessors fail, and instead of being wilfully ignorant, learned from their mistakes.
And my "edgy" avatar is that of a dead man and one of my heroes

There's a difference between "drawing conclusions based on results found in a laboratory" and "results found in laboratory is actually a euphemism for destruction, sin, and pride, where destruction, sin, and pride are not actually found in the text, but can be a metaphor for said text".

Do you...do you know what the word "interpretation" means? I believe what I actually said was "there are no interpretations in science" which means "exactly what it says in the abstract and methodology actually happened in the laboratory".

 

[Bronze]

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Read the article you post:

Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Homo erectus that may be answered with future discoveries:

Was Homo erectus the direct ancestor of Homo sapiens, our own species?
Data suggest that increasing body size, greater reliance on animal food resources, and increased range size were part of a web of factors that facilitated the initial early dispersal of H. erectus from Africa. Was one of these factors more important than the others?
Are the fossils from earlier time periods in East Africa, and from Georgia, all part of a single species (Homo erectus), regionally variable in size and shape? Or are there actually several species of early human represented by what we are now calling Homo erectus?
How well did Homo erectus master the control of fire and how widespread was fire used? What does this say about possible dietary shifts in this species?
Did Homo erectus grow up in a more human-like pattern and rate, or a more ape-like one? Was Homo erectus the first early human species to experience an adolescent growth spurt?

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Read the article you post:

What it's saying is "is Homo erectus the very last species in line before Homo sapien?" This does not mean the article is without proof of Homo erectus's lineage. Every generation of a species is undergoing Evolution, very, very incrementally and slightly. It takes many, many generations for a species to deviate from another.

Every generation along this red line is a "Direct ancestor of Homo sapien". Generation by generation.

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

, you will see that two species come to mind in regards to what came before Homo sapien: Homo erectus, and Homo Heidelbergensis. Take your pick, both species are under that red line. What matters is the phenotypic frequency change of the species generation by generation.

 

[Bronze]

What it's saying is "is Homo erectus the very last species in line before Homo sapien?" This does not mean the article is without proof of Homo erectus's lineage.

Evidence definition: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

What you are describing is a theory/hypothesis, which has yet to provide evidence or proof of its validity. Plus, I can just post a video or link that debunks the evolution theory.

 

[slimreaper]

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

There's a difference between "drawing conclusions based on results found in a laboratory" and "results found in laboratory is actually a euphemism for destruction, sin, and pride, where destruction, sin, and pride are not actually found in the text, but can be a metaphor for said text".

Do you...do you know what the word "interpretation" means? I believe what I actually said was "there are no interpretations in science" which means "exactly what it says in the abstract and methodology actually happened in the laboratory".

You are making this overly complicated. Two people in a laboratory can look at the same data and come to two vastly different conclusions.

The fact that science is based in theories proves that it can and is interpreted by said scientists or theorists

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Evidence definition: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

What you are describing is a theory/hypothesis, which has yet to provide evidence or proof of its validity. Plus, I can just post a video or link that debunks the evolution theory.

You're confusing Scientific theory with Layman Theory. Layman Theory is a commonpeoples' guess, while a Scientific Theory is a principle with mountains of evidence to support it, whose methodology has been replicated several times over by many Ph.Ds in their field. A hypothesis is a claim that contains some evidence to support it, but does not contain enough evidence nor hasn't been replicated enough times to be elevated to a Scientific Theory.

Evolution has more evidence than the theory of Heliocentrism, the idea that the earth revolves around the Sun. Think about that.

Who is the author of the video? What accreditation does he/she have? Is it a Ph.D in Biology, or is he a random shmuck with no education? What direct evidence unearthed by paleontologists does he find fallacious? Does he understand the science of Biology? Will he use actual evidence against the evidence collected for Biology, or will he use flimsy philosophical dribble which is hilariously in favor for religion?

You are making this overly complicated. Two people in a laboratory can look at the same data and come to two vastly different conclusions.

The fact that science is based in theories proves that it can and is interpreted by said scientists or theorists

If they look at the same data and came to two vastly different conclusions, either the scientist in the first lab's hypothesis has been debunked back up the scientific method to "experiment again", or the scientist in the second lab did not do the exact experiment to the requirements specified in the methodology.

And you need to look up the definition of a Scientific theory as well, being sure not to confuse it with Layman Theory. There are no "religious interpretations" in Science. There is "drawing conclusions based on the data retrieved from the experiment.

There is exactly Zero Percent of "I think it is allegory to represent THIS!"

 

[Bronze]

You're confusing Scientific theory with Layman Theory. Layman Theory is a commonpeoples' guess, while a Scientific Theory is a principle with mountains of evidence to support it, whose methodology has been replicated several times over by many Ph.Ds in their field. A hypothesis is a claim that contains some evidence to support it, but does not contain enough evidence nor hasn't been replicated enough times to be elevated to a Scientific Theory.

That's the same as the evolution theory. See, you're getting closer now!

Evolution has more evidence than the theory of Heliocentrism, the idea that the earth revolves around the Sun. Think about that.

What we are asking is the fossil of the common ancestor that humans evolved from, and it proves that it does belong to the common ancestor. And it gives explanation to how the common ancestor was brought up and such. Bringing me that link you posted, which you haven't read yourself, is not a proof since I basically quoted what the article itself said about the fossil: ''still unanswered questions''.

Who is the author of the video? What accreditation does he/she have? Is it a Ph.D in Biology, or is he a random shmuck with no education? What direct evidence unearthed by paleontologists does he find fallacious? Does he understand the science of Biology?

It doesn't matter who he/she is; he/she is still better than you and I at biology. Here you go:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Both are scientists with a degree in biology that you and me will never achieve, and both disagree with evolution.