Dawkins and Wendy Wright debate.

[outhouse]

why is the evidence against evolution censored out and only the evidence which favor evolution presented?

first of all, I believe evolution really isnt up for debate, we know it happen's and happened.

The only evidence against, is not science it is a possible myth. You dont debate science vs myth if one is on the science side. dawkins was being nice not telling her she only has a myth in her camp. scientist do not go after religion, many are religious.

 

[outhouse]

saying we are kin monkeys

isnt this statement ignorant?

the first fossil forms almost 3 billion years old are cyanobacteria but I do not say we are kin to bacteria.

 

[Pegg]

What did you expect him to whip it out in front of her.

He told her to go to the smithsonian museum and see their exhibit.

to which she replied that there are a lot of 'drawings' (artists impressions of) rather then actual physical evidence. And she's right. An artists impression should never be regarded as evidence.

And the evidence against evolution isn't censored out. That's her opinion she gave no evidence to back up this claim, she didn't even give an example.

it is actually true. Anything found to discredit evolution is quietly kept in the background or only mentioned indirectly, whereas any evidence in favor of it is given lots of attention.

i can think of mutation experiments which discredit the supposed changes over long periods of time, the sudden appearance of new species rather then slow and gradual and a geological record without a continuous gradation of fossils from one species to another just to name a few.

The problem with debating creationists so much is there are only so many many arguments they put forward before they just put their fingers in their ears and you just get sick of beating your head against the brick wall that is their ignorance.

-Q

yes thats probably very true

im sure we feel the same way

 

[The Neo Nerd]

i can think of mutation experiments which discredit the supposed changes over long periods of time, the sudden appearance of new species rather then slow and gradual and a geological record without a continuous gradation of fossils from one species to another just to name a few.

Do you have any actual examples of this or are you doing a Wendy and just making stuff up to suit your argument?

 

[painted wolf]

Actually it isn't really your hypothesis it is Dawkins, saying we are kin monkeys. You made a rather good one. I'm sure monkeys are nice to have as pets, just like dogs, but I would probably keep them in a cage while I'm sleeping.
They seem little more rabid than rabbits.

So you really don't know about the theory of evolution then?

Evolution says all living things are "kin", separated by varying degrees of time. Thus we are closer "kin" to chimps than monkeys.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

it is actually true. Anything found to discredit evolution is quietly kept in the background or only mentioned indirectly,

what is there that actually has any merit to disprove evolution ???????????????????????????????????

your trying to put a speed limit on evolution expecting everything to evolve at the same speed. It doesnt work like that.

Some are fast and some slow. You can get increased rates such as spurts. Its fairly natural as enviroments change

 

[Gloone]

So you really don't know about the theory of evolution then?

Evolution says all living things are "kin", separated by varying degrees of time. Thus we are closer "kin" to chimps than monkeys.

wa:do

OKAY BACK THE FREAKING BUS UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you say "kin" are you saying related or similar?

 

[linwood]

i can think of mutation experiments which discredit the supposed changes over long periods of time, the sudden appearance of new species rather then slow and gradual and a geological record without a continuous gradation of fossils from one species to another just to name a few.

Do you have reference for this claim?

 

[painted wolf]

i can think of mutation experiments which discredit the supposed changes over long periods of time, the sudden appearance of new species rather then slow and gradual and a geological record without a continuous gradation of fossils from one species to another just to name a few.

How does evidence that evolution can happen quickly become evidence against evolution? :areyoucra

wa:do

 

[Pegg]

Do you have any actual examples of this or are you doing a Wendy and just making stuff up to suit your argument?

there are examples, yes. They have been gone over and over in evo and creo threads :sleep:


im so over the argument i just cant be bothered going into it, its tiring and nobody is going to win it. I know evolution occurs, its the changes in populations. Unfortunately science takes 'that' evidence one step further and says that its also how new species are created which i dont believe because there is no evidence for it and never can be because 'apparently' it happens over such a long time scale that no one will be alive to see it occur. Well even the fossil record was unable to capture it so im not going to 'buy into it' as Wendy rightly said.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

to which she replied that there are a lot of 'drawings' (artists impressions of) rather then actual physical evidence. And she's right. An artists impression should never be regarded as evidence.

Evidence for Human Origins | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[painted wolf]

OKAY BACK THE FREAKING BUS UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you say "kin" are you saying related or similar?

related.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

there are examples, yes. They have been gone over and over in evo and creo threads :sleep:


im so over the argument i just cant be bothered going into it, its tiring and nobody is going to win it. I know evolution occurs, its the changes in populations. Unfortunately science takes 'that' evidence one step further and says that its also how new species are created which i dont believe because there is no evidence for it and never can be because 'apparently' it happens over such a long time scale that no one will be alive to see it occur. Well even the fossil record was unable to capture it so im not going to 'buy into it' as Wendy rightly said.

Heredity - Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations

wa:do

 

[Gloone]

related.

wa:do

related how? By blood, flesh, bone, brains, wits, intelligence... what?

 

[Pegg]

Evidence for Human Origins | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

lining up a bunch of fossil skulls is not enough to prove that they all came from the same stock

yes we happen to have similar skulls to monkeys... it doesnt make them human and it doesnt make us monkey.

horses and whales have similar shaped skulls too

 

[painted wolf]

related how? By blood, flesh, bone, brains, wits, intelligence... what?

shared ancestry.. like you and I are only on a larger scale.

wa:do

 

[The Neo Nerd]

lining up a bunch of fossil skulls is not enough to prove that they all came from the same stock

yes we happen to have similar skulls to monkeys... it doesnt make them human and it doesnt make us monkey.

horses and whales have similar shaped skulls too

You said

to which she replied that there are a lot of 'drawings' (artists impressions of) rather then actual physical evidence. And she's right. An artists impression should never be regarded as evidence.

Then i show you more than just drawings.

I'm not sure i see the problem.

And it's better evidence than ANY submitted so far for the existence of your god.

-Q

 

[Gloone]

shared ancestry.. like you and I are only on a larger scale.

wa:do

That is you and me though, not us and penguins.

 

[Pegg]

%20

You said



Then i show you more than just drawings.

I'm not sure i see the problem.

And it's better evidence than ANY submitted so far for the existence of your god.

-Q[/quote]


how come you got the image working and i couldnt? I used the correct

tags...

I dont view the skulls as evidence. I agree that they appear to fit in with the theory, but that is all they do. They do not prove the theory, nor can they. the information in the genetic material cannot change one species into another...the information is set in stone, the genes produce what they are programmed to produce.

 

[Gloone]

[youtube]MmfQ7gSaJgM[/youtube]

Tell Manson he came from a penguin, I'm sure he wouldn't be happy.