The Evolution Chamber: Piltdown Man

[Subduction Zone]

How is it your first quote above doesn't contradict your second quote above?

So you don't understand your error, why am I not surprised?

 

[Earthling]

Since you are an ape it appears that you are obviously wrong.

Honestly. I don't know whether I should take this seriously or as an insult. Are you an ape?

 

[Earthling]

So you don't understand your error, why am I not surprised?

Never explain it. Just try to look clever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Honestly. I don't know whether I should take this seriously or as an insult. Are you an ape?

Of course, as are you.

The sad thing is that you do not even know enough to ask a proper question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never explain it. Just try to look clever.

There is no point. If you could promise to debate properly I might consider it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then forget about it because all you ever supply is smart *** remarks like that. You had to have been either a cop or a school teacher at some point because only those two could be so arrogant and simultaneously obtuse and useless.

It is rather hypocritical of you to complain. Your own rudeness earned those responses. If you pay attention you will see that I am very polite to the rare polite or even serious creationist.

What you see as arrogance is only a mirror image of your bad behavior.

 

[sayak83]

How is it your first quote above doesn't contradict your second quote above?

Why it does not contradict? Why would what I say contradict each other? I have a consistent evidence based worldview.

 

[Earthling]

Why it does not contradict? Why would what I say contradict each other? I have a consistent evidence based worldview.

First you said scientific evidence is firmly for the evolution of human from ancient apes.

And I said do we have any evidence of an ape becoming a human?

Then you said, No. That would disprove evolution.

Explain the apparent contradiction.

 

[sayak83]

First you said scientific evidence is firmly for the evolution of human from ancient apes.

And I said do we have any evidence of an ape becoming a human?

Then you said, No. That would disprove evolution.

I thought you meant in real time. There is lots of evidence that it has occurred over the extended time span of 7 million years. Do you wish to know about the evidence?

 

[gnostic]

How is it your first quote above doesn't contradict your second quote above?

sayak83 didn’t contradiction himself when he wrote this:

No. That would disprove evolution. These are the kind of malicious misconceptions that we seek to remove in this section of the forum.

He was referring to your absurd, unreasonable and unrealistic example “dog” becoming “cellular telephone”, which I have highlighted in bold & red:

Do we have any evidence of an ape becoming a human or a dog becoming a cellular telephone?

The part about dog and phone transformation is “malicious” misconceptions on evolution.

As to humans and apes: We are already “apes”, or “great apes” or more precise scientific terminology “Hominidae”.

I am not a biologist, so someone here can explain the divergence from the other subfamilies, tribes, genera and species to you. If I was to explain to you, I would only confuse you.

But if you are talking about turning a chimpanzee turning into a human, that’s not how evolution work, I can tell you that much.

Evolution don’t jump from one species of one genus to species of very different genus.

That’s your other “misconception”.

I can also tell you before the split between genus Pan and genus Homo, our common ancestors have some physical attributes that were chimp-like and otherattributes that were human-like, but this key species weren’t chimp or human.

If you really wanted to learn and understand evolution, trying asking questions for explanations and clarification, instead of making up silly and unrealistic claims.

 

[gnostic]

What I find funny is that creationists would accuse people for accepting evolution, but really don’t understand it, and expect people to present unreasonable and unrealistic evidences, like turning dog into cat, or monkey into human.

It is simply not how evolution. They twist everything around and trying to turn science into magic, like their belief in god and in miracles.

And yet, silly creationists can wholeheartedly believe in angels that can have body of humans but 2 wings, 4 wings or six wings of a bird. Or that angels can have four faces of lion, eagle, bull and human.

Or in Revelation 13, the beast, with 7 heads, and resembles lion, leopard and bear.

They cannot accept simple, explainable and observable science, but they can believe these sort of nonsenses from OT & NT?

How’s that not ludicrous?

Either these prophets and disciples are having wild delusional dreams or they are tripping on LSD.

 

[John53]

What I find funny is that creationists would accuse people for accepting evolution, but really don’t understand it, and expect people to present unreasonable and unrealistic evidences, like turning dog into cat, or monkey into human.

What I find funny is that many of them whine about being mocked, some even use it as evidence for God yet they try plenty of their own against anyone who doesn't agree with them. Turning the other cheek and treating your neighbour how you would like to be treated gets glossed over at times.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First you said scientific evidence is firmly for the evolution of human from ancient apes.

And I said do we have any evidence of an ape becoming a human?

Do you understand the difference between

"My grandmother gave birth to my mother who gave birth to me."

And

"My grandmother became me."?

If so, you should understand the flaw in your request here. What's more, it makes no sense, since humans are a subspecies of ape in the first place, so seeing an ape "become" a human is like asking to see a mammal "become" a bear.

 

[Audie]

What I find funny is that creationists would accuse people for accepting evolution, but really don’t understand it, and expect people to present unreasonable and unrealistic evidences, like turning dog into cat, or monkey into human.

It is simply not how evolution. They twist everything around and trying to turn science into magic, like their belief in god and in miracles.

The professional creationists like at AIG do deliberately
distort and misrepresent science for their own, I think,
rather cynical reasons.

Our creationists here seem an earnest lot,
but, sometimes shockingly, ill equipped to
talk about science.

The weird n wacky things that they bring up
to try to disprove or discredit science are generally
either some vague "philosophy" thing,
something equally vague about "assumptions"
or, some fact that just is not a fact.

People who are actually well educated in science
such as our Dr. K. Wise, a yec paleontologist
does not even try to disprove ToE.

He'd sure go for it, as would anyone, if he happened
to have some sort of data, some facts to
show he is right. No data. No facts.

If he cant do it, I dont see how our high school
biology plus a chick tract creationists think they
are up to the task.

 

[Audie]

Do you understand the difference between

"My grandmother gave birth to my mother who gave birth to me."

And

"My grandmother became me."?

If so, you should understand the flaw in your request here. What's more, it makes no sense, since humans are a subspecies of ape in the first place, so seeing an ape "become" a human is like asking to see a mammal "become" a bear.

Actually understanding ToE is not all that easy,
tho the concept you are detailing is one of the
easiest.

A person who went to a third rate school and
refuses to study further is going to be making that
kind of mistake, tho.

 

[metis]

As far as it's literal basis not making sense, what do you think that basis was? Is it the supernatural aspects of it? Have you read the account?

[Just a reminder to all that the above is a reference to the Flood narrative, which I commented on in regards that this account if taken literally would posit God as being a genocidal maniac on the largest scale in all of human history. Therefore, imo, it can only be taken as allegory.]

The religion of Babylon was polytheistic with deities that often fought each other, which they believe led to Earth's creation that ended up being a mixture of good and bad made and influenced by good and bad deities. The story of Gilgamesh is a by-product of that belief system, so it has a different "feel" than what is found in Genesis on this and many other matters.

The Creation accounts in Genesis tell a different story than the much much larger and earlier Babylonian accounts, and it obviously posits One God making Earth and the heavens, which contained what He said were "good" creations from Him.

The Flood narrative continues on in this vein, positing One God, but Who's creation went sour because of the Fall (a narrative that tries to explain how "sin" came into this world-- iow, how could God create a "good" world but then see it go bad), thus had to be cleansed (water is heavily used in Judaism for ritual bathing-- the mikvah, which is the historical basis for baptism), thus the Flood.

So, what we tend to read as separate narratives (Creation, Fall, & Flood) really need to be read as a whole. Even though these narratives were commonly considered to be real historical events in the ancient past, many scholars later noted that there's some rather serious problems if they are taken literally. The Flood narrative simply doesn't add up in several different ways if taken at that level, and it certainly isn't compatible with the science that can be applied to this.

We could take this into a new thread if you wish because I just noted a short time ago that this discussion isn't part & parcel with the OP.

 

[ecco]

If you really wanted to learn and understand evolution,

He's already made his views clear...

Don't keep insinuating that the more I try the more likely it is that I accept Evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

So another creationist posts about Piltdown Man, but cannot complete the sentence: Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax, therefore _____________ ?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Do we have any evidence of an ape becoming a human or a dog becoming a cellular telephone?

Yes:

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Honestly. I don't know whether I should take this seriously or as an insult. Are you an ape?

Humans are an ape in the same way that a chihuahua is a dog.