Why do humans have genes for full body hair?

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm very curious what the creationist explanation would be for the origin of traumatic insemination in reproduction would be?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why would you think that?

Because you said you were leaving.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because you said you were leaving.

Show me. Where?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because you said you were leaving.

You didn't quote the entire post. I've noticed you do that. Or don't respond to some posts in a way that looks selective. I wonder why.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, you have no idea what you are talking about.
What qualifies as high powered? 55 grains? 100 grains, 150? 200?
Please explain why a certain charge is considered " high powered"

Nope, you simply do not even understand the terminology. None of those are examples of power. That is why you have been losing the debate. You lack the basic understanding of science to even know what people are talking about.

 

[leroy]

Are you aware of the fact that Darwin was not only a Christian but also a lay minister? However, he did become more agnostic later in life, maybe caused by so many Christians who attacked him?

No I didn't know that......


But why is it relevant?

 

[leroy]

It is a term coopted by creationists to use as a pejorative in an effort to dismiss the theory and supporting evidence by means of negative implication rather than by fact of evidence.

Darwinism is an archaic term and should really be applied to the study of Darwin, the man himself. Which is not the subject under debate here. His original work on the subject of evolution was not entitled the origin of species by darwinism.

I'm not sure what the proper term for a person that reviews the evidence, recognizes the explanatory power of the theory regarding that evidence and defends that position should be called. Science supporters? That sounds accurate and correct.

Did you ever figure out that this thread was about alternative creationist explanations for the science presented in that paper of the OP?

It isn't the subject of this thread now. In my experience, creationists often divert such questions and debates rather quickly into ad hominem slam fests and, for this thread, who has the bigger gun.

@SkepticThinker asked the question, I simply answered it, so any accusation of diverting the topic should be directed to him.

Btw
Only only fanatic evolutionsts from think that darwinism is a pejorative term.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@SkepticThinker asked the question, I simply answered it, so any accusation of diverting the topic should be directed to him.

I didn't say that anyone particular person had diverted the topic of thread or that you did. I pointed out that you, based on the evidence of your posts, didn't seem to understand the OP.

Btw
Only only fanatic evolutionsts from think that darwinism is a pejorative term.

No. That is not correct and your say so as evidence of the assertion is meaningless. Trying to use it as some passive aggressive ad hominem does nothing to elevate your position and just stokes the flames of the fire that redirects the topic of the thread. In trying to eliminate your participation, you only further cement it.

 

[leroy]

I didn't say that anyone particular person had diverted the topic of thread or that you did. I pointed out that you, based on the evidence of your posts, didn't seem to understand the OP.
No. That is not correct and your say so as evidence of the assertion is meaningless. Trying to use it as some passive aggressive ad hominem does nothing to elevate your position and just stokes the flames of the fire that redirects the topic of the thread. In trying to eliminate your participation, you only further cement it.

Even Richard Dawkins uses the term darwinism in the same context I did

Only fanatics from forums think thT the term is offensive

View
Richard Dawkins
Evolution from molecules to men, 403-425, 1983
It is widely believed on statistical grounds that life has arisen many times all around the universe (Asimov, 1979; Billingham, 1981). However varied in detail alien forms of life may be, there will probably be certain principles that are fundamental to all life, everywhere. I suggest that prominent among these will be the principles of Darwinism. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is more than a local theory to account for the existence and form of life on Earth. It is probably the only theory that can adequately account for the phenomena that we associate with life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Even Richard Dawkins uses the term darwinism in the same context I did

Only fanatics from forums think thT the term is offensive

View
Richard Dawkins
Evolution from molecules to men, 403-425, 1983
It is widely believed on statistical grounds that life has arisen many times all around the universe (Asimov, 1979; Billingham, 1981). However varied in detail alien forms of life may be, there will probably be certain principles that are fundamental to all life, everywhere. I suggest that prominent among these will be the principles of Darwinism. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is more than a local theory to account for the existence and form of life on Earth. It is probably the only theory that can adequately account for the phenomena that we associate with life.

I did not say that it didn't have legitimate usage, but it is archaic and it is often used as a pejorative by creationists. You do not have to be a fanatic to recognize that fact.

I think there are better terms that get us away from a focus on Darwin and into a focus on evolutionary biology where it belongs. It is bad enough that creationists think of Darwin as some sort of high priest that they continually turn to and beat on when he is long gone and not doing anything relevant to biology now.

I do not appreciate your hostility and name calling. Even when it is presented by a backhanded, passive aggressive effort. I would recommend that you cease and desist. I would prefer you focus on the topics, understand them before you post and present clear arguments backed by evidence and reason. A disagreement is not a personal attack on you.

Your link doesn't go to the quoted material.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I didn't know that......


But why is it relevant?

It does show that evolution is not "atheistic". But I do have to thank you. I just realized that gravity is more " atheistic" than evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It does show that evolution is not "atheistic". But I do have to thank you. I just realized that gravity is more " atheistic" than evolution.

I'm still up in the air on that.

 

[leroy]

It does show that evolution is not "atheistic". But I do have to thank you. I just realized that gravity is more " atheistic" than evolution.

So what? Non of my arguments depens on evolution being Atheistic .......

 

[SkepticThinker]

It explains that it was not done naturally.

No, it doesn't. Perhaps "God did it" naturally. Or not. It explains nothing.

We don't know what gravity is but know it exists and give it attributes which are measurable.
So even in science we don't know what things are that we know exist.
The existence of spirits is not a testable claim and so is not a scientific question.
It's a bit like an invisible dragon in our garage, we believe by faith or not if that is the case.
We can have evidence for spirit without knowing what it is however, as with gravity.
[/quo0te]
We can describe what gravity is. We can measure it. We can observe it. We can make predictions about it. Can we do any of those things with your claims about spirits? Nope. All you can do is tell me what they aren't. Well, that isn't how we define things.

If the existence of spirits isn't testable in any way, then how on earth are you claiming such things exist and then giving attributes to them? Think about it for a second. It makes no sense.
You don't have a method for discerning fact from fiction. Faith definitely is not that because as you point out, we can believe in invisible dragons in our garage on faith, just as we can believe in the Biblical God on faith. And neither of those faith-based beliefs gets us anywhere even close to demonstrating the existence of either of those things.

Is everyone like that or just you and other skeptics. If everyone then it must be the same for me.

I don't know what other people do. I know that I can't believe a thing without being convinced that it's true.

Invoking faith is fine is the evidence is enough for you, or me. So it's basically a case of speak for yourself.

Invoking faith means that you've given up. As you've so aptly demonstrated in this thread. And as you've also so aptly demonstrated, faith is not a pathway to truth, because anything can be believed on faith.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm the only one here using any scientific logic.
I don't even know anymore what you are trying to claim.

Nah, your logical fallacies have been pointed out to you over and over but you just continue on using them for some reason.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@SkepticThinker asked the question, I simply answered it, so any accusation of diverting the topic should be directed to him.

Btw
Only only fanatic evolutionsts from think that darwinism is a pejorative term.

I think it's a silly and strange term to use. I mean, we don't don't call people who accept gravity Newtonists, do we? Or people who accept the germ theory of disease Kochists, right?
Sounds to me like that poster was spot-on.

 

[metis]

No I didn't know that......


But why is it relevant?

Because all too many demonize Darwin, including misunderstanding where he was coming from. On top of that, we know myriads more about evolution than what he could have known.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A darwinist is someone who claims that organisms evolve mainly by the mechanism of random variation + natural selection

That would just be a "scientist". You may be making the error of assuming that this is dogmatically accepted. Only the most ignorant of those that accept evolution do so based upon dogma.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nope, you simply do not even understand the terminology. None of those are examples of power. That is why you have been losing the debate. You lack the basic understanding of science to even know what people are talking about.

I don't see you explaining, so I have to assume you have no idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see you explaining, so I have to assume you have no idea.

That is because you won't even ask proper questions.

Let's go over the concept of "Power" first. Power is not energy. The amount of powder is directly tied with energy. Bullets have kinetic energy. The formula for that is KE = (1/2)mv^2

Power is a rate. It is the rate of delivery of energy. It is the formula for power is P = KE/t.

Do you understand this so far? Do you need links to any of these?