The Darwin Delusion

[Gharib]

And you wonder why we correct you when you say stupid things like "an ape turned into a human". None of us thinks humans are chimps. That's why we have two different species, humans and chimps. However, humans are apes. That's a fact.

and what i said and what you said are contradicting achother in what way exactly?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Respect is a two way street, and in that sense people should be respected if it's mutual, but beliefs in of themselves don't necessarily warrant respect, especially if they're unsubstantiated, irrational and require one to wallow in denial, willful ignorance and self deceit in order to adhere to them.

True, true, true, and true.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

michael denton, an australian creationist, did you even read the article?

Yes I did and it really doesn't offer evidence contrary to evolution.

It offers a personal biased opinion based on a lack of imagination.

"Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage"

A lack of imagination in one individual does not offer evidence that evolution is wrong.

"In short, the transition from mammal lung to avian lung is impossible due to the fact that the lung that would be in a transitional developmental stage would have no functionality."

This statement is not supported with any evidence. We cannot be certain that any lung in transition is not functional.

I would like the source please.

 

[Magic Man]

and what i said and what you said are contradicting achother in what way exactly?

Well, chimps and apes are two different things. Humans are in the ape family, while chimps aren't. Humans are a kind of ape, they are not a kind of chimp.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

yeah can we focus on the dino-bird theory rather than mixing everything. be patient, everything will have it's time in the spot light.

I merely have provided sources which contain transitional fossils as evidence for my argument.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I merely have provided sources which contain transitional fossils as evidence for my argument.

Pfft. What are "sources" compared to the power of talking out of one's ***?

 

[Father Heathen]

Well, chimps and apes are two different things. Humans are in the ape family, while chimps aren't. Humans are a kind of ape, they are not a kind of chimp.

And being classified as hominidae (great apes) doesn't make us the same as or just like the other apes or any other specie of the same classification. We are what we are regardless and it doesn't lessen us in any way how our species is classified or how our species came to be. We are also mammals, but that doesn't mean we homosapiens are on the 'same level' as mice, unless muslims would also argue that we aren't mammals, either.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

yeah can we focus on the dino-bird theory rather than mixing everything. be patient, everything will have it's time in the spot light.

Then here is an interesting article for your perusal on the Archeaopteryx and its relation to dinosaurs and birds.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

 

[Jose Fly]

michael denton, an australian creationist, did you even read the article?

Denton since wrote a book entitled "Nature's Destiny", wherein he embraced evolution and common descent (primarily because of the undeniable nature of the genetic data) and argued for some sort of theistic evolution.

Denton stated in this book:

it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school".

 

[fantome profane]

Well, chimps and apes are two different things. Humans are in the ape family, while chimps aren't. Humans are a kind of ape, they are not a kind of chimp.

:areyoucraYou should check that, I am pretty sure Chimpanzees are also apes, part of the ape family.

 

[Magic Man]

:areyoucraYou should check that, I am pretty sure Chimpanzees are also apes, part of the ape family.

Yes, you're right. I misspoke. My brain is fried right now.

Just to clarify, though (not for you, FP), that doesn't make humans chimps. It makes humans and chimps apes.

 

[AlsoAnima]

Respect is a two way street, and in that sense people should be respected if it's mutual, but beliefs in of themselves don't necessarily warrant respect, especially if they're unsubstantiated, irrational and require one to wallow in denial, willful ignorance and self deceit in order to adhere to them.

It's that kind of thinking that got us into this mess. Two people who only respect people who respect them will never respect each other. Rather, it is better to respect everyone, because respect breeds trust, cooperation, and understanding, even if everyone does not respect you.

 

[kiwimac]

Carico has a long history of this kind of posting on various boards.

 

[Fortunato]

Sorry but humans only "naturally" select other humans, not a different species with whom to breed.

I'm sorry - but this is funny - your story reminded me of a joke I heard a long time ago about a sheep herder and his flock who got lonely one night and he decided to .... umm... decided to .... ummm ... damn it! I hate it when I forget a punchline! Anyways, after his wife heard what he had done, she threw his *** out of their hut and gave some of their sheep away. I think the moral of the joke was something about work makes strange bed fellows or one shouldn't take animal husbandry too literally or ... wait! No, no, no, those were wrong. Now I remember the actual moral for the sheep herder. One should always keep your friends close, your secrets closer, but keep closest of all those warm cuddly creatures that go "baaaaaah" in the night!

 

[nonbeliever_92]

It's that kind of thinking that got us into this mess. Two people who only respect people who respect them will never respect each other. Rather, it is better to respect everyone, because respect breeds trust, cooperation, and understanding, even if everyone does not respect you.

I think he was trying to say that people deserve respect but their ideas don't necessarily deserve respect, especially if those ideas don't have any substantial support to them.

 

[Callida]

Hahaha! Frubals to you Fortunato! And thus are natural selection and sexual selection distinguished.

 

[Vile Atheist]

When writing a story, an author has to make up his characters before he can go on with his story. Since Darwin had no evidence of his characters in the real world, he had to conjure them up in his imagination. He simply looked for an alternative to the biblical account of the creation of man and said; "If man wasn't created by God, then where could he have come from? I know, something that already exists like...another animal. Hey, yeah...which animal looks like a human? An ape!"

So here's how the story of evolution began:

Once upon a time 500,000 years ago... no 750,000 years ago... no 2,000,000 years ago...I'll skip the setting and go on.

Once upon a long time ago, an ape,..no a monkey, no a half-human- half monkey...I'll skip that part too and just call him an ancestor common to...humans...no monkeys..no humans and monkeys...no, humans and some other unknown animal.

Once upon a long time ago a common ancestor, no many common ancestors, yeah, I'll stick with that...mated with a monkey..no an ape...

Needless to say, a story that didn't start well can't end well either.

Nevertheless, because people were eagerly looking for an alternate explanation to God's creation, it wouldn't be hard at all for them to accept even a badly written fiction story that never got started.

Since Darwin never described his main characters, then he can't possibly know what they were capable of breeding.

But again, since the public wanted even a badly written story, then Darwin left it to the imaginations of his readers to finish the story. But as expected, one can't finish a story that never even began which is why of course, no one today still knows the main characters (common ancestors) of Darwin's story.

But what makes his story a delusion, is that Darwin actually believed that his characters existed!

It's bad enough when an author believes that characters he can describe existed, but when he believes that characters that he himself can't describe existed, then his story is even more delusional.

When God says that the wisdom of the world is foolishness in His sight, nothing proves Him right better than the story of evolution.

Dissent to accepted scientific ideas is always a positive reinforcement of knowledge. If the dissent proves what is accepted to be wrong, then we rule out an explanation for some system. If the dissent itself is wrong, then we can assume with great confidence that the accepted theory is indeed correct.

However, to be legitimate scientific dissent, there needs to be evidential basis. This means that if you want to say evolution is not true, that's awesome. But provide evidence. Fossil bunnies in the Precambrian? Great.

In order to disprove something, you need to have a general understanding of the subject and you don't even have that. And I'm not saying everyone has to agree whole-heartedly with evolution, but if you have no basis for disagreeing other than your blind faith in a deity, and you refuse to even look at the overwhelming evidence for evolution, why should we bother wasting our time with you?

Why should we hold your hand and politely explain to you why you are a pool of intellectual stagnation? Why should we even entertain what you have to say if you have less than nothing to bring to the table?

When you sleep tonight, just remember that Australopithecus > You.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

actually what i would call primitive are not some sand people, but rather civilised modern people who think they are chimps. i feel sorry for you guys, i really do.

what else are humans to do appart from take care of the dissadvantaged monekys of the wild and especially humans who think they are apes.

I am curious to know WHY you regard the idea that we are related to other life forms so objectionable. Do you REALLY believe that the fact that EVERY life form on this planet shares DNA is just - meaningless?

 

[Vile Atheist]

I am curious to know WHY you regard the idea that we are related to other life forms so objectionable. Do you REALLY believe that the fact that EVERY life form on this planet shares DNA is just - meaningless?

Well if I evolved from a monkey, why are there still monkeys!?!? *snicker*

 

[Kerr]

Well if I evolved from a monkey, why are there still monkeys!?!? *snicker*

Because we are not some kind of end goal, and because we did not come from monkeys, but monkeys and humans had a common ancestor?

(At last I think that was the way it was, can be wrong, lol.)