Sugarhitman #fundie

Sugarhitman #fundie iidb.infidels.org

1. Darwin sees similarities between man and ape, decides to write book
2. Hunt for skeletal remains begins in pursuit of an imaginary creature born out of the mind of one man.
3. No remains found
4. Remains discovered....proven hoaxes
5. Fragmented skulls hailed as evidence.
6. A few oddball skeletons found...labled as mans ancestors.
7. Fossil record fails to prove man descent.
8. Genectics now employed to proved Evolution
9. Discoveries announce man is similiar to many animals including fruitflies

Now where will it go from here? Maybe it will lead to the Truth that all find decent from the same material....created by the same God or....all evolved from a common parent (which also includes plants)....which of the two sound right to you?

42 comments

old comment by Allegory for Jesus

1. No. The original formation of evolutionary theory had very little to do with observations of how humans were involved in it.
2. Imaginary creature born out of the mind of one man? I'm giggling, but you don't know why!
3. I guess I assumed that when you called whatever the hell this exaggeration of history is searching for "imaginary".
4. Only some remains were hoaxes. Most were not. Hell of an argument.
5. So, skulls are not evidence? Somebody, call up the writing staff for CSI, and quick!
6. A few oddball skeletons that were dated to time before the appearance of non-oddball human skeletons, and possessed distinctive characterisitics were called human's ancestors. I really don't know what possible problem you could have with that.
7. Apparently your definition of one or more of those words differs from what they mean for most people.
8. Why shouldn't genetics be used to prove evolution, since evolution relies on genetics to occur, and, in fact, most of the predictions of evolutionary theory coincide with genetic theory (founded independently, and after Darwin's original formation of the theory)?
9. They are, in many ways. Isn't that neat?

Oh, and the "common parent" one sounds right, because the one involving God is introducing an agent beyond any that we have sufficient experience or evidence for presuming as true.

Edit:
MessianicServant said: I was taught to always submit my understanding of the facts to the objective witness of God's Word. This prevents me from falling into subjective interpretations.

My response: Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...oh...um..ha...woooo.

That was entertaining. Subjecting all information to your Christian worldview in order to make it "objective"....priceless!

old comment by Sandman

@ MessianicServant:

An "advanced degree?" In what, might I ask?

You have been published? In what journals/issues? What were the articles? Back up your claims or zip it.

And you are an "amateur scientist?" If you approach science with a pre-determined benchmark, and base your conclusions on that pre-determined benchmark rather than on actual empirical evidence, such as "submit[ing] [your] understanding of the facts to the objective witness of God's Word," then you are no scientist. You are a doctrinal apologist.

And I would love to know what kind of amateur garage experiments one can perform to investigate the physics of the creation of the universe. Must be one hell of a set-up you have there.

old comment by FMG

1. Darwin saw similarities in finches and beaks and size. Not humans. Humans were a fairly late idea.

2. No a variety of bones were found. We called them cave men. We thought their diet made them different. We did all manner of stupid things with "africans". We began to assemble some sort of tree. We then refined this tree with dating techniques.

3. We have a fair few remains.

4. Two hoaxes are not sufficient to destroy science. It was science that disproved them. And we did it in a few years. Unlike your christian hoaxes or relics. The most famous being the shroud of Turin... A hoax. Took nearly 400 years before it was science that proved it false.

5. Thats because you don't understand fossil homology. Or even understand what the evidence means. For instance "Lucy". Lucy's only difference from a chimpanzee like organism is that it has a foramen magnum underneath the skull as opposed to behind. Therefore it stands on two feet. Like us. Because crawling on 4s would have been disadvantageous for that posture. Its a basic tool use adaptation... Its the start of our rise as a tool user.

6. A few oddballs makes it 18 different species roughly within our family tree of evolution and rising. Thats not a few. And this goes over 4 million years of evolution.

7. We have one missing link in our fossil chain to us. We have some that are missing to homo florensis. And are you insane we have records of two other homo species written during our history. Homo Florensis and Homo Neandrathalis went extinct while we were still knocking about. We have DNA tested their bones because they are so young.

8. You cannot use genetics as an "against" to evolution. Genetics is an extremely powerful tool that provides us with the information of mechanisms of evolution. You are quite happy to use it to kill criminals but not for this.

9. Yes. We are like fruit flies. We use something called conservation of DNA so we use the same genomics. So we share a lot of similar genes. To show the power of genes... I give you one of our most vital ones. The Sonic Hedgehog.

image

It makes freaking 4 legged ducks!! I could get out the cat pictures but meh.

We did evolve from a common parent which also includes plants. We SHARE DNA codes. Meaning Plant DNA if inserted into an animal will be expressed and vice versa. All eukarya do this. Its one of our ideas in the pharmaceutical industry!

old comment by Hasher

Actually Darwin and Wallace (who independently arrived at the same theory) both observed a great many animals and plants. Evolution isn't just about apes and humans.

Evolution was already widely accepted/assumed on the basis of many homologies throughout nature and changes in the fossil record. All Darwin and Wallace did was propose a credible mechanism.

the only major hoax skull was the Piltdown skull. It was a distraction, as was the Nebraska error (which persisted less than a year). Numerous skeletons in various states of decay/damage have been found showing numerous ape species, no longer extant, which have features in common with genus Homo.

Study history if you're going to pontificate about it.

old comment by Palifox

"Darwin sees similarities between man and ape, decides to write book." Er, not quite correct.

"Hunt for skeletal remains begins in pursuit of an imaginary creature born out of the mind of one man." That sounds like a lie, I suspect that early human fossils were known before Charlie D. wrote about the descent of man. I could be wrong there, though.

"No remains found" That's a flat lie.

"Remains discovered....proven hoaxes." That's a flat lie.

"Fossil record fails to prove man descent." Quite correct, but it's evidence. And by the way, that should be "man's descent".

"Genectics now employed to proved Evolution" Pity about the spelling and grammar, but the poster is almost correct. Mathematically genetics is consistent with evolutionary theory. Shown in the early 20th century, long before DNA was sequenced.

"Discoveries announce man is similiar to many animals including fruitflies" Our poster may be upset to hear that DNA sequences and therefore amino acid sequences in growth regulatory proteins are identical or close to identical in all mammals and some short sequences are the same in grasses. It should be "similar" not "similiar".

This is not the worst I've seen but it's not much better.

Sugarhitman #fundie iidb.infidels.org

42 comments

Confused?