hooberus
JoinedPosts by hooberus
-
15
Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain
by BurnTheShips init's a miracle!.
evolutionists flock to darwin-shaped wall stainseptember 5, 2008 | issue 4436. darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic.. dayton, tna steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of charles darwinauthor of the origin of species and founder of the modern evolutionary movementmade manifest on a concrete wall in downtown dayton.. "i brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits," said darlene freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last monday on one side of the rhea county courthouse.
the building was also the location of the famed "scopes monkey trial" and is widely considered one of darwinism's holiest sites.
-
-
-
44
How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
by hooberus inthis thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).
please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.
i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.
-
-
hooberus
Hooberus - even if you conceed that man decends from "ancient apes" not "modern apes" - your premise is still flawed. See my post above. Evolution does not declare that changes occur to every descendant equally and that all of one thing transform into all of another. In fact it says the exact opposite. Without diverse environmental impacts on different siblings, we would not have the diverse forms of life that we have. There is nothing to dictate how long one certain set of characteristics will stay around in one branch. If chimps are well suited to the jungle, and the jungle environment has been consistent, then we would EXPECT the ones that remained in that environment to not have changed much. Their evolution HAS given them different traits from their ancestors, like increased strength, agility, and limited social skills. Whereas our branch of the family must have had a much different environment in which abstract thought and communication were the skills necessary to survive.
The fact that something similar to our ancestors still are alive is not a valid argument. It is a strawman falicy. I'm trying to help you hone your arguments because they're so uninformed at the moment it's not even interresting replying. A more informed debate would definitly be appreciated.
To which of my specific comments are your referring? As far as I recall on this subject I have only been dealing with the specific issue of whether or not the alleged common ancestor of humans and modern apes was himself also an ape (albeit somehwat different from modern apes). Where did I even make the other arguments that you try to rebut?
-
44
How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
by hooberus inthis thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).
please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.
i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.
-
-
hooberus
Back to the subject: If you are a non-evolutionist debating an evolutionist on the subject of man, I would recommend using reasonably qualified terminology such as "evolution teaches that people descended from lower animals such as ancient apes." Then if you are charged with error or "ignorance" by an evolutionist [though you shouldn't be -since you post was clear] point out that you said "ancient apes" not modern apes. If they still continue to deny that evolution teaches that people came from apes post the information here (especialy from George Gaylord Simpson).
-
44
How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
by hooberus inthis thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).
please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.
i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.
-
-
hooberus
Though Darwin did state "But we must not fall into the error of supposing that the early progenitor of the whole Simian stock, including man, was identical with, or even closely resembled, any existing ape or monkey", he did however (immediately prior) admit that "The Catarrhine and Platyrrhine monkeys agree in a multitude of characters, as is shewn by their unquestionably belonging to one and the same Order. The many characters which they possess in common can hardly have been independently acquired by so many distinct species; so that these characters must have been inherited. But a naturalist would undoubtedly have ranked as an ape or a monkey, an ancient form which possessed many characters common to the Catarrhine and Platyrrhine monkeys, other characters in an intermediate condition, and some few, perhaps, distinct from those now found in either group. And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the Catarrhine or Old World stock, we must conclude, however much the conclusion may revolt our pride, that our early progenitors would have been properly thus designated. (16. Haeckel has come to this same conclusion. See 'Uber die Entstehung des Menschengeschlechts,' in Virchow's 'Sammlung. gemein. wissen. Vortrage,' 1868, s. 61. Also his 'Naturliche Schopfungsgeschicte,' 1868, in which he gives in detail his views on the genealogy of man.)" The Descent of Man
-
44
How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
by hooberus inthis thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).
please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.
i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.
-
-
hooberus
Evolutionary theory teaches that in the distant past, humans and modern great apes had a common ancestor that shared some traits similar to modern apes and some traits similar to modern humans.
The alleged common ancestor of humans and modern apes was even more "primitive" than the modern apes which supposedly descended from it. Therefore what (non-modern ape) specific "traits similar to modern humans" could such a creature have possessed?
-
44
How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
by hooberus inthis thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).
please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.
i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.
-
-
hooberus
I understand your desire for this to be a debate tutorial and not a debate thread in itself, so let me just correct you on this. Evolution doesn't teach that people came from apes. Trying to argue this point with an evolutionist will immediately show you as someone that is ignorant of the subject.
See Simpson quote later added to my previous post.
-
44
How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
by hooberus inthis thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).
please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.
i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.
-
-
hooberus
"Evolution doesn't teach that people came from apes!" Evolutionsts often say. They may then state something like "instead it teaches that people share a comman ancestor with the apes"
The problem with this is that the "common ancestor" was itself an ape, and evolution teaches that we did indeed come / descend from it.
"On this subject, by the way, there has been too much pussyfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be a descendant of any living ape - a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility - and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." George Gaylord Simpson (prominent evolutionist)
-
44
How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
by hooberus inthis thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).
please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.
i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.
-
-
hooberus
Evolution (what is being debated) is essentiallly a naturalistic version of history . In this story people descended from lower animals such as ancient apes, which themselves supposedly descended from other animals. Such as scenario places creatures such as reptiles, amphibians an even fish in mans ultimate direct ancestral tree. This scenario ultimately starts in the origin of life from non-life. Evolutionists will frequently deny much of the above and claim that evolution doesn't teach that people came from apes, etc. and especially that evolution and the origin of life are completely separate. However it wasn't always this way:
"Evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Theodosius Dobzhansky Science, 155:409-415, 1967
"The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems."
George Gaylord Simpson opening sentence chapter 2 "The Meaning of evolution" 1949
Today even specific "evolution books" such as "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr have relatively lengthly sections on the origin of life (see chapter 3 of his book), with no demarcation between it and "evolution".
And of course its either explicitly (or implicitly) included in evolution in many textbooks. (picture from yecheadquarters)
Despite the above if a CREATIONIST mentions the issue in an evolution debate it the following frequently occurs- We are told that "it is not a part of evolution theory" or worse that we are guility of "ignorance" or even "dishonesty." The fact is that "evolution" can include many different things from the minimalist "any change in alle frequencies" to possibly also include things such as universal common ancestry, amphibians descending from fish, humans descending from ancient apes, even to the origin of life itself. One of the real reasons for the insistence by many evolutionists today that it must be "excluded" is really in response to the scientific difficulties that have been revealed, and not to any empirical necessity that it be excluded as "not being a part of evolution". -
44
How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
by hooberus inthis thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).
please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.
i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.
-
-
hooberus
This thread is primarily directed to Biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here). Please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics. I will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.
I consider myself to be an informed Biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum. This thread should help you to learn evolutionist tactics as well as from my mistakes, and the mistakes of others.
Principal #1. Watch out for Distraction. Be cautious about entering into lengthy debate. Read this warning:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/christian_warning.htm
Read it again:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/christian_warning.htm
If you must debate:
Try to refrain from lengthy discussions if possible (see above warning!). Its probably best instead to reference highest quality creationist resources avaialable online (and avoid time consuming banter) with evolutionists. I recommend the following be referenced to so that lurkers will at least know that informed responses are available for those who are genuinely interested.
The Creation Research Society http://www.creationresearch.org
International Conference on Creationism http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc.htm
Understand that evolutionists here are generally are not evidence based (as they almost always imply) but rather are world-view based (though they will appeal to certain scientific facts to support their worldview). There is nothing wrong with being world-view based, nor with using valid evidence from science to support a worldview, however many persons claim to be "evidence" based, and in reality are ultimately world view based instead. Their attitude gives it away! The fact that most evolutionists here are not evidence based is reflected in the often vicious attitudes that they often express toward anyone that questions their belief system (no matter how well informed the questioner may be).
The evolutionists own ignorance of the creation/evolution issue. Strange as it may seem most of the evolutionists here (and especially the ones who lecture others about "their ignorance of the subject") are themselves very ignorant about creation and even evolution, (though this doesn't stop them from speaking). Examples will be given.
-
360
Why Evolution Should Be Taught
by hamilcarr inwhy evolutionary biology is a crucial part of the curriculum .... .
optimism in evolution.
by olivia judsonlondon.
-
-
hooberus
from the first post:
Why evolutionary biology is a crucial part of the curriculum ...
Optimism in Evolution
By OLIVIA JUDSON
LONDON
When the dog days of summer come to an end, one thing we can be sure of is that the school year that follows will see more fights over the teaching of evolution and whether intelligent design, or even Biblical accounts of creation, have a place in America’s science classrooms.
In these arguments, evolution is treated as an abstract subject that deals with the age of the earth or how fish first flopped onto land. It’s discussed as though it were an optional, quaint and largely irrelevant part of biology. And a common consequence of the arguments is that evolution gets dropped from the curriculum entirely.
This is a travesty.
It is also dangerous.
Evolution should be taught — indeed, it should be central to beginning biology classes — for at least three reasons.
First, it provides a powerful framework for investigating the world we live in. Without evolution, biology is merely a collection of disconnected facts, a set of descriptions. The astonishing variety of nature, from the tree shrew that guzzles vast quantities of alcohol every night to the lichens that grow in the Antarctic wastes, cannot be probed and understood. Add evolution — and it becomes possible to make inferences and predictions and (sometimes) to do experiments to test those predictions. All of a sudden patterns emerge everywhere, and apparently trivial details become interesting.
The second reason for teaching evolution is that the subject is immediately relevant here and now. The impact we are having on the planet is causing other organisms to evolve — and fast. And I’m not talking just about the obvious examples: widespread resistance to pesticides among insects; the evolution of drug resistance in the agents of disease, from malaria to tuberculosis; the possibility that, say, the virus that causes bird flu will evolve into a form that spreads easily from person to person. The impact we are having is much broader.
For instance, we are causing animals to evolve just by hunting them. The North Atlantic cod fishery has caused the evolution of cod that mature smaller and younger than they did 40 years ago. Fishing for grayling in Norwegian lakes has caused a similar pattern in these fish. Human trophy hunting for bighorn rams has caused the population to evolve into one of smaller-horn rams. (All of which, incidentally, is in line with evolutionary predictions.)
Conversely, hunting animals to extinction may cause evolution in their former prey species. Experiments on guppies have shown that, without predators, these fish evolve more brightly colored scales, mature later, bunch together in shoals less and lose their ability to suddenly swim away from something. Such changes can happen in fewer than five generations. If you then reintroduce some predators, the population typically goes extinct.
Thus, a failure to consider the evolution of other species may result in a failure of our efforts to preserve them. And, perhaps, to preserve ourselves from diseases, pests and food shortages. In short, evolution is far from being a remote and abstract subject. A failure to teach it may leave us unprepared for the challenges ahead.
The third reason to teach evolution is more philosophical. It concerns the development of an attitude toward evidence. In his book, “The Republican War on Science,” the journalist Chris Mooney argues persuasively that a contempt for scientific evidence — or indeed, evidence of any kind — has permeated the Bush administration’s policies, from climate change to sex education, from drilling for oil to the war in Iraq. A dismissal of evolution is an integral part of this general attitude.
Moreover, since the science classroom is where a contempt for evidence is often first encountered, it is also arguably where it first begins to be cultivated. A society where ideology is a substitute for evidence can go badly awry. (This is not to suggest that science is never distorted by the ideological left; it sometimes is, and the results are no better.)
But for me, the most important thing about studying evolution is something less tangible. It’s that the endeavor contains a profound optimism. It means that when we encounter something in nature that is complicated or mysterious, such as the flagellum of a bacteria or the light made by a firefly, we don’t have to shrug our shoulders in bewilderment.
Instead, we can ask how it got to be that way. And if at first it seems so complicated that the evolutionary steps are hard to work out, we have an invitation to imagine, to play, to experiment and explore. To my mind, this only enhances the wonder.
Olivia Judson, a contributing columnist for The Times, writes The Wild Side at nytimes.com/opinion.
What is the evidence that anyone is trying to drop any evolution "from the curruiculum entirely"?
And especially what is the evidence that anyone is trying to drop things such as drug resistance or other observed biological changes from the cirriculum?
To my knowledge Creationist and ID organizations are generally not even opposed to the teaching of the full "evolutionary version of history." Though they would also prefer alternatives or at least "evidence against" as well as the "positive evidence" presented.
As far as the things listed in the arcticle (drug resistance etc.) such things are even taught in dedicated creationist literature. So who is trying to drop them?
