Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

They (scientists) are guessing when it comes to many, m.a.n.y things. That is clear to me. When you can prove beyond doubt that life began with one cell just like that out of where no one really 'knows' as far as evolutionists are concerned, and then they multiplied by "natural selection" into plants and animals then we'll have a discussion.

But you repeatedly demonstrate an almost complete ignorance of the sciences and how they are done. And you ignore offers to even go over the basics. That makes your opinion of no value at all. And you forgot the Ninth Commandment again.

 

[YoursTrue]

It depends. Piltdown man was an expressed fake, unless, of course, you believe the fragments discovered were really of some type of humanoid being. Or perhaps your jury is out about Piltdown Man, heralded as true for decades, by, of course, educated scientists teaching that to the gullible. Same as Haeckel's recaptulation theory.

OK, I take part of that back. Teaching that Piltdown Man was a real but dead human being of sorts to others, not only the gullible. Thank God that people like Michael Behe began to look at the "theory" of evolution with different spectacles.

 

[YoursTrue]

A fake used to support an idea, where others are fooled, is not evidence against that idea. There have been countless fakes for Christianity. By your poor logic Christianity has been refuted by those accepted fakes countless times. Also Haeckel was merely wrong. He was never key to evolution. But like it or not his drawings still are evidence for evolution. They are just not evidence for his particular version of evolution.

You say it's evidence for evolution. I say just because human embryos have certain characteristics that resemble other forms of life does not mean that the first pair of humans came about by natural selection of evolution. Even the term 'natural selection' implies a selective process, as if the genes selected what it wanted.

 

[YoursTrue]

But you repeatedly demonstrate an almost complete ignorance of the sciences and how they are done. And you ignore offers to even go over the basics. That makes your opinion of no value at all. And you forgot the Ninth Commandment again.

LOL, you're funny at least. In a sardonic sort of way.
Meantime, you're helping me to pay attention to certain things. Such as, now what was it that led to scientists saying the Piltdown Man was a human being, or humanoid, whatever they said it (he?) was? Some history here from wikipedia about "Piltdown Man": "That summer, Dawson and Smith Woodward purportedly discovered more bones and artifacts at the site, which they connected to the same individual. These finds included a jawbone, more skull fragments, a set of teeth, and primitive tools.:
So all that and put it together and voila! you say it's EVOLUTION! Imagine that...
(For a while scientists did, anyway.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, I take part of that back. Teaching that Piltdown Man was a real but dead human being of sorts to others, not only the gullible. Thank God that people like Michael Behe began to look at the "theory" of evolution with different spectacles.

LOL! Behe accepts common descent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say it's evidence for evolution. I say just because human embryos have certain characteristics that resemble other forms of life does not mean that the first pair of humans came about by natural selection of evolution. Even the term 'natural selection' implies a selective process, as if the genes selected what it wanted.

Yes, Haeckel's drawings are evidence for evolution. But you won't let yourself learn the concept. Seriously you constantly demonstrate that you have no clue.

Why are you afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, you're funny at least. In a sardonic sort of way.
Meantime, you're helping me to pay attention to certain things. Such as, now what was it that led to scientists saying the Piltdown Man was a human being, or humanoid, whatever they said it (he?) was? Some history here from wikipedia about "Piltdown Man": "That summer, Dawson and Smith Woodward purportedly discovered more bones and artifacts at the site, which they connected to the same individual. These finds included a jawbone, more skull fragments, a set of teeth, and primitive tools.:
So all that and put it together and voila! you say it's EVOLUTION! Imagine that...
(For a while scientists did, anyway.)

No, the Piltdown man is not evidence for evolution. But it is not evidence against it either.

There have been all sorts of frauds committed for Christianity. The number of holy relics alone in Europe is truly incredible. It was Mark Twain that first made me aware of this:

"The main point of interest about the cathedral is the little Chapel of St. John the Baptist. They only allow women to enter it on one day in the year, on account of the animosity they still cherish against the sex because of the murder of the Saint to gratify a caprice of Herodias. In this Chapel is a marble chest, in which, they told us, were the ashes of St. John; and around it was wound a chain, which, they said, had confined him when he was in prison. We did not desire to disbelieve these statements, and yet we could not feel certain that they were correct-- partly because we could have broken that chain, and so could St. John, and partly because we had seen St. John's ashes before, in another church. We could not bring ourselves to think St. John had two sets of ashes.

They also showed us a portrait of the Madonna which was painted by St. Luke, and it did not look half as old and smoky as some of the pictures by Rubens. We could not help admiring the Apostle's modesty in never once mentioning in his writings that he could paint.

But isn't this relic matter a little overdone? We find a piece of the true cross in every old church we go into, and some of the nails that held it together. I would not like to be positive, but I think we have seen as much as a keg of these nails. Then there is the crown of thorns; they have part of one in Sainte Chapelle, in Paris, and part of one also in Notre Dame. And as for bones of St. Denis, I feel certain we have seen enough of them to duplicate him if necessary."

The Innocents Abroad by Mark Twain: Chapter 17 (continued) - The Literature Page

The sheer number of relics guarantee that at least some of them are fakes. Does that disprove the Jesus story? You are not thinking rationally. If fakes disprove an idea then Christianity is disproven. Piltdown man was never well accepted. The British liked him just because he was found there, but scientists in other countries were not so quick to drink the Kool-Aid.

Meanwhile I am waiting to hear more about Java man.

 

[Astrophile]

No, the Piltdown man is not evidence for evolution. But it is not evidence against it either.

Piltdown man was never well accepted. The British liked him just because he was found there, but scientists in other countries were not so quick to drink the Kool-Aid.

In one sense, Piltdown man probably was a human ancestor. The Piltdown skull was certainly that of a modern human, who probably lived in about the 14th century; he didn't know that he was going to achieve posthumous fame as a faked fossil. We don't know anything about the original owner of the skull. He had a name (Yorick?), and had parents. He may have been married and had children; he may even have living descendants. There is no certainty that he lived in Sussex, or anywhere in Britain, but it is not impossible. If he did live in Sussex, and given that I, and both my parents, were born less than 90 km from Piltdown, it is possible that I am actually descended from Piltdown Man, and that this skull is the skull of one of my own ancestors!

'That skull had a tongue in it, and could sing once. How the knave jowls it to the ground.'

 

[YoursTrue]

Based on what?


False. It makes perfect sense when you consider all of the available facts.


What are you talking about? Evolution explains precisely how plants and animals came about, and it has absolutely nothing to do with water, clouds and gravity. Where did you get that idea from?

The idea that you figure all "life" on earth, that is, came from one cell coming from -- who knows where.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The idea that you figure all "life" on earth, that is, came from one cell coming from -- who knows where.

That still makes no sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, the Piltdown man is not evidence for evolution. But it is not evidence against it either.

There have been all sorts of frauds committed for Christianity. The number of holy relics alone in Europe is truly incredible. It was Mark Twain that first made me aware of this:

"The main point of interest about the cathedral is the little Chapel of St. John the Baptist. They only allow women to enter it on one day in the year, on account of the animosity they still cherish against the sex because of the murder of the Saint to gratify a caprice of Herodias. In this Chapel is a marble chest, in which, they told us, were the ashes of St. John; and around it was wound a chain, which, they said, had confined him when he was in prison. We did not desire to disbelieve these statements, and yet we could not feel certain that they were correct-- partly because we could have broken that chain, and so could St. John, and partly because we had seen St. John's ashes before, in another church. We could not bring ourselves to think St. John had two sets of ashes.

They also showed us a portrait of the Madonna which was painted by St. Luke, and it did not look half as old and smoky as some of the pictures by Rubens. We could not help admiring the Apostle's modesty in never once mentioning in his writings that he could paint.

But isn't this relic matter a little overdone? We find a piece of the true cross in every old church we go into, and some of the nails that held it together. I would not like to be positive, but I think we have seen as much as a keg of these nails. Then there is the crown of thorns; they have part of one in Sainte Chapelle, in Paris, and part of one also in Notre Dame. And as for bones of St. Denis, I feel certain we have seen enough of them to duplicate him if necessary."

The Innocents Abroad by Mark Twain: Chapter 17 (continued) - The Literature Page

The sheer number of relics guarantee that at least some of them are fakes. Does that disprove the Jesus story? You are not thinking rationally. If fakes disprove an idea then Christianity is disproven. Piltdown man was never well accepted. The British liked him just because he was found there, but scientists in other countries were not so quick to drink the Kool-Aid.

Meanwhile I am waiting to hear more about Java man.

The Bible does not speak of churches that were or should be named after those they call saints. Further, the atrocities of the churches and religion in general are horrifying. You don't have to convince me, I already know that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible does not speak of churches that were or should be named after those they call saints. Further, the atrocities of the churches and religion in general are horrifying. You don't have to convince me, I already know that.

Then don't use that sort of argument.

 

[YoursTrue]

That still makes no sense.

No, it doesn't if you 'see' evolution as something coming from one cell which came from (???) and then burgeoned somehow into multitudinous other cells and then more complex organisms. Nope, it doesn't make sense at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then don't use that sort of argument.

You did, I didn't. Remember that commandment you keep referring to. But in any case, I am not speaking of religion, which you have already decided has misunderstood and maligned what the Bible really says. Among other things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it doesn't if you 'see' evolution as something coming from one cell which came from (???) and then burgeoned somehow into multitudinous other cells and then more complex organisms. Nope, it doesn't make sense at all.

Just because you won't let yourself learn does not mean that others cannot.

Why not put your fear aside for a little while and try to learn what evidence is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You did, I didn't. Remember that commandment you keep referring to. But in any case, I am not speaking of religion, which you have already decided has misunderstood and maligned what the Bible really says. Among other things.

No, I used the exact same sort of argument that you did. That is why for you it is a failed argument. By your "logic" Christianity is disproved.

 

[YoursTrue]

So how is that supposed to help your myth?

Once again you need to learn what is and what is not evidence.

And if you want to understand biology one has to understand evolution.

Humans, unlike their predecessors, are on a collision course provoking utter ruination of the earth. That is truth. Chimpanzees and bonobos and fish and shrimp are not on this destructive course set to jeopardize mankind's existence. Only mankind is. Nuclear plants breaking down, and things like that. Whether you believe it or not, the Bible says that God will destroy those who are destroying the earth. Revelation 11:18.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just because you won't let yourself learn does not mean that others cannot.

Why not put your fear aside for a little while and try to learn what evidence is.

So you really do firmly believe that "life" evolved from nonliving substances to somehow become one cell (or more than one cell) that burgeoned forth into many cells, and then separated somehow or naturally selected (?) to emerge eventually to plants and animals. I've looked at your evidence and I have decided it's mainly fabricated.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I used the exact same sort of argument that you did. That is why for you it is a failed argument. By your "logic" Christianity is disproved.

My logic is showing that God, who is the Grand Creator and Originator of life, is going to do away with what destructive mankind has done to the earth. Much of what is termed as Christianity is certainly not applauded or evidenced, shall we say, in the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is just false propaganda: Scientists were not allowed to study the Piltdown man closely for a quite long time. The very moment they first studied it, it was exposed as a hoax.

It was NON-scientists perpetuating the Piltdown man hoax, including your fellow Christians in an attempt to cast doubt for evolution. When it was exposed, all of you change tune to "it was the scientists who believed it!"

Scientists expressed doubt about the Piltdown man since the beginning.

Sad.

Some, certainly not all, scientists expressed doubt about the Piltdown man.
According to wikipedia, "The Piltdown Man hoax succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment believed that the large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery provided exactly that evidence. It has also been thought that nationalism and cultural prejudice played a role in the less-than-critical acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists."
Imagine that.