Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#35297 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
So what, slavish follower of origins.com .?
You don't get it? The info in that article IS NOT BEING DISPUTED BY ANYONE HERE, because it's correct. Get it, you bovine excrement filled waste of space?
Actually, I used that article from TalkOrigins because YOU continued to assert that Nebraska Man was widely believed to be that of a human ancestor. It was not.

It's interesting to note that you have to rely on 2 briefly misidentified fossils from almost 100 years ago -- that SCIENCE quickly, and correctly reclassified -- to use as your (I surmise) evidence against the Theory of Evolution.

Question: Are you a YEC? If so, do you have any POSITIVE evidence FOR your position?
The Dude Destroyer

Australia

#35298 Jul 24, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
What a bunch of lying crap! There is BOTH a Montana Man AND a Nebraska Man. YOU are the stupid shit that confused the two. Now you want to act like you've set some sort of trap. You're just one more, ignorant, fundie fraud.
And, no, I didn't have to go look it up. Unlike yourself, I am knowledgeable on the subject.
Now why don't you go back to your fundie sites and drag out something else that was shown BY SCIENTISTS! to be fraudulent a hundred years ago. We'll wait. It's a slow morning and I get a laugh out of the ignorant making a fool of himself.
"You're just one more, ignorant, fundie fraud."

*Noted. The above is the usual method of the moronic holders of ToE, who make ASSUMPTIONS - FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. This is par for the course, and yet again proves my point about the curious "fuzzy logic" (read as illogical thought processes of those who take fragments of bones and proceed to manufacture entire "beings" of their own choosing out of them) that must necessarily accompany those among among the ranks of the deluded.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#35299 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
*Noted. Deflection due to desperation.:D
I see, so you adhere to a double standard.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#35300 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Noted: FAILED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THOSE DISTINGUISHED experts from the time didn't make those statements. STILL FAILING to address my point. More DEFLECTION. TRYING TO WIDEN the debate because you cannot answer my point.:D
8-0
How can you claim to have made a point when you've done nothing to challenge the modern evolutionary synthesis?

Did this find demonstrate evolution? No.

Did it falsify evolution? No.

Got anything relevant that seriously challenges what we know call the modern evolutionary synthesis? Do you have an alternative scientific explanation that explains biodiversity at least as good as or even better than evolution? Still waiting.

All you got so far is "Somebody effed up in 1926!"

Big whoop.(shrug)
The Dude Destroyer

Australia

#35301 Jul 24, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I used that article from TalkOrigins because YOU continued to assert that Nebraska Man was widely believed to be that of a human ancestor. It was not.
It's interesting to note that you have to rely on 2 briefly misidentified fossils from almost 100 years ago -- that SCIENCE quickly, and correctly reclassified -- to use as your (I surmise) evidence against the Theory of Evolution.
Question: Are you a YEC? If so, do you have any POSITIVE evidence FOR your position?
Comprehension problem much? Or are you just being willfully disingenuous?

This is about sloppy methodology that is used to uphold ToE. And, now also about the FACT that Nebraska Man was widely accepted among the evolution community.

Psst...let me clue you in on something. I don't want to know about the copious BS found in the main evolution brainwashing organ known as talkorigins. But, please provide evidence that the following is untrue.

"In 1917, Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, unearthed one molar tooth in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. In 1922, he sent the tooth to Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. He wrote Cook saying: "I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself:'It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid'" (Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, "Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America," American Museum Novitates, 37, p. 2 ). One month later, Osborn announced that Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was the first anthropoid ape from America; a missing link in human evolution.

Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, England, supported Osborn saying, "I think the balance of probability is in favour of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family" (Smith, The Evolution of Man 1927)"

P.s. Question denied. I'm not falling for your attempts to widen this.

You haven't admitted that paleontologists use sloppy methodology to foist their assumptions onto the public.



Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#35302 Jul 24, 2012
>>>lightbeamrider
The whole of the Bible attributes the first Five Books to Moses. Naturally he did not write the circumstances surrounding his death. Probably attributed to Joshua.

>>>Gillette
It's been known in mainstream Christian theological institutes and seminaries for over 100 years that the Pentateuch was written by several authors (probably 5) and not by someone named "Moses."

The hard evidence is the text itself, which can be taken apart into its different component stories.

>>>lightbeamrider
Darwin Evolution is taught in Christian Schools. Does not mean students believe it.

>>>Gillette
It means that the teachers and faculty know and acknowledge that the Theory of Evolution is scientifically correct. Who cares whether the students "believe it" or not?

>>>lightbeamrider
What i know is it is a joke amoung most Christians who have taken it or know anything about it.

>>>Gillette
Yes, among fundamentalist yobs like yourself.

I was clear in saying that it is taught in MAINSTREAM seminaries and divinity schools: Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, etc.

>>>lightbeamrider
A problem i have is the assumption it was written hundreds of years after Moses. It is pure BS.

>>>Gillette
That CONCLUSION (not assumption) is based, in large part, on the multiple ANACHRONISMS in the text -- history and political realities that only existed centuries LATER than the supposed Moses supposedly wrote.

How do you explain those away?

>>>lightbeamrider
You know little about how the Christian community works.

>>>Gillette
I was a Christian for 41 years. I apparently know a whole lot more about it -- and about the history and structure of your holey Bible -- than you do. LOL
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#35303 Jul 24, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Good point. But if He did resurrect, where does that leave you?
If the Muslims are correct and Allah is Lord and all of you who are Christian infidels are bound for eternal torture at the hands of Allah, WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE YOU?

See how brain-dead your ideas are?

You actually just resorted to the moron's gambit called Pascal's Wager!:)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#35304 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol It's not acceptable, nor is it logical, for someone who purports to be a reasonably intelligent Dude, to be making an utter fool of himself in front of his peers.
BACK TO THE POINT, you slithering, slimy snake.
We've addressed yours. You consistently avoid ours.

Did the find demonstrate evolution? No.

Did it falsify evolution? No.

Until you can address evolution itself you got zip.

Still waiting.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#35305 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
"You're just one more, ignorant, fundie fraud."
*Noted. The above is the usual method of the moronic holders of ToE, who make ASSUMPTIONS - FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. This is par for the course, and yet again proves my point about the curious "fuzzy logic" (read as illogical thought processes of those who take fragments of bones and proceed to manufacture entire "beings" of their own choosing out of them) that must necessarily accompany those among among the ranks of the deluded.
Blah, blah, blah.
The Dude Destroyer

Australia

#35306 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you claim to have made a point when you've done nothing to challenge the modern evolutionary synthesis?
Did this find demonstrate evolution? No.
Did it falsify evolution? No.
Got anything relevant that seriously challenges what we know call the modern evolutionary synthesis? Do you have an alternative scientific explanation that explains biodiversity at least as good as or even better than evolution? Still waiting.
All you got so far is "Somebody effed up in 1926!"
Big whoop.(shrug)
Oh Dude!:( You're too easy. NO. What I've demonstrated is: That if the rest of that PIG wasn't found, to this very day you'd believe in Nebraska Man. Why? Due to the sloppy, slipshod assumptive methods used to this very day by paleontologists to uphold ToE. Get it, moron?

And, this is true. We both know it, hehe.:D AND, it clearly demonstratea that some "heavyweigtys" of the time believed in Nebraska Man and it was only disregarded ONCE the rest of the PIG was found, you disingenuous fraud.:)

"In 1917, Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, unearthed one molar tooth in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. In 1922, he sent the tooth to Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. He wrote Cook saying: "I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself:'It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid'" (Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, "Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America," American Museum Novitates, 37, p. 2 ). One month later, Osborn announced that Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was the first anthropoid ape from America; a missing link in human evolution.

Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, England, supported Osborn saying, "I think the balance of probability is in favour of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family" (Smith, The Evolution of Man 1927)"

As for your continued attempts to try to widen this. Sorry.:) I'm here to show you CAN'T adequately answer me, pal. And, until the owners of this sire delete our lovely correspondences, due to it's embarrassing implications, it'll stand here for all to see. Quick! Get those Mods to delete it! Thant's the normal way it goes down on sites such as this.

Dude, your "cute" and "clever" use of "Goddit" is now demanding you pay the price. And that price is the embarrassment you're suffering here as I show how your ilk *magically* create beings out of mere fragments --- and GET IT WRONG.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#35307 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol Classic. "Wow. Aren't you Mr Current Events!"
Dear brain-damaged marmoset, a truth is a truth regardless of the length of time that elapses. Or, are you suggesting that the theory of gravity has changed or is likely tochange? Well, be assured it hasn't, as long as your fat ass is pointing to the ground, ok, you ridiculous clown?
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol Classic. "Wow. Aren't you Mr Current Events!"
Dear brain-damaged marmoset, a truth is a truth regardless of the length of time that elapses. Or, are you suggesting that the theory of gravity has changed or is likely tochange? Well, be assured it hasn't, as long as your fat ass is pointing to the ground, ok, you ridiculous clown?
Actually Newton's "law" (actually a theory) of gravity HAS changed, all the way back when Einstein came up with relativity. And that theory in turn is being replaced by quantum mechanics.

But the truth is that the scientific validity of evolution is not affected by Nebraska man.

Did it demonstrate evolution? No

Did it falsify evolution? No.

Do you have a better alternative that does a better job of explaining biodiversity? Still waiting.

Until then you got zip.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#35308 Jul 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
The Dude, why did you repeat your post about Nebraska Man?
Please do not confuse me with... THE DESTROYER.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#35309 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Comprehension problem much? Or are you just being willfully disingenuous?
This is about sloppy methodology that is used to uphold ToE. And, now also about the FACT that Nebraska Man was widely accepted among the evolution community.
Psst...let me clue you in on something. I don't want to know about the copious BS found in the main evolution brainwashing organ known as talkorigins. But, please provide evidence that the following is untrue.
"In 1917, Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, unearthed one molar tooth in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. In 1922, he sent the tooth to Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. He wrote Cook saying: "I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself:'It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid'" (Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, "Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America," American Museum Novitates, 37, p. 2 ). One month later, Osborn announced that Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was the first anthropoid ape from America; a missing link in human evolution.
Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, England, supported Osborn saying, "I think the balance of probability is in favour of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family" (Smith, The Evolution of Man 1927)"
P.s. Question denied. I'm not falling for your attempts to widen this.
You haven't admitted that paleontologists use sloppy methodology to foist their assumptions onto the public.
Alright.

I'll play.

YES. For approximately FIVE YEARS, close to 100 years ago, a very small minority of paleontologists misidentified a fossil tooth as belonging to a hominid.

The vast majority of their paleontologist peers were skeptical, or downright critical from the start as to this fossil being evidence for a hominid.

I again ask, do you have any POSITIVE evidence for your position as a YEC/OEC?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#35310 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Dude!:( You're too easy. NO. What I've demonstrated is: That if the rest of that PIG wasn't found, to this very day you'd believe in Nebraska Man. Why? Due to the sloppy, slipshod assumptive methods used to this very day by paleontologists to uphold ToE. Get it, moron?
If that was the case you wouldn't know about the pig.

But keep beating up straw-men, o great destroyer.
The Dude Destroyer

Australia

#35311 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Actually Newton's "law" (actually a theory) of gravity HAS changed, all the way back when Einstein came up with relativity. And that theory in turn is being replaced by quantum mechanics.
But the truth is that the scientific validity of evolution is not affected by Nebraska man.
Did it demonstrate evolution? No
Did it falsify evolution? No.
Do you have a better alternative that does a better job of explaining biodiversity? Still waiting.
Until then you got zip.
Does your ever-widening posterior still point to the ground? If so, zip it, you insufferable fool.

Not relevant. You haven't addressed the sloppy, slipshod methodology that's employed. You haven't refuted my sources. Thing is, O lover of novelty, you and your ilk are ready to jump on the bandwagon with every new so-called "discovery", but are always hesitant to admit you're wrong. You remind me of a character called the "Fonz" on this old show I saw on cable. "I was wrrrr...wrrrrr...wrrrr wrrrr...wrrr." He just can't admit he's wrong.:D "No care taken, no responsibility accepted" - thus is the way of pseudo-science.
The Dude Destroyer

Australia

#35312 Jul 24, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright.
I'll play.
YES. For approximately FIVE YEARS, close to 100 years ago, a very small minority of paleontologists misidentified a fossil tooth as belonging to a hominid.
The vast majority of their paleontologist peers were skeptical, or downright critical from the start as to this fossil being evidence for a hominid.
I again ask, do you have any POSITIVE evidence for your position as a YEC/OEC?
Problem. Your statement was riddled with BS. Try again. Try to employ a thing called "honesty."

Problem with logic. Time is irrelevant. Point is: if the rest of that PIG wasn't found, it would have continued to be foisted on the public as being "Nebrasks Man." Ergo, major problem with your methodology = you and your ilk can't be trusted. And, in addition, everyone knows that lying is second nature to you and your ilk and that you CAN'T ever admit you're wrong, as evidenced by the copious, artfully framed excuses that the muppets, like you, are programmed to respond with.

Moreover, it was widely accepted by the evolution community and esteemed members of science were lauding it.

Get lost.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#35313 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Does your ever-widening posterior still point to the ground? If so, zip it, you insufferable fool.
Not relevant. You haven't addressed the sloppy, slipshod methodology that's employed. You haven't refuted my sources. Thing is, O lover of novelty, you and your ilk are ready to jump on the bandwagon with every new so-called "discovery", but are always hesitant to admit you're wrong. You remind me of a character called the "Fonz" on this old show I saw on cable. "I was wrrrr...wrrrrr...wrrrr wrrrr...wrrr." He just can't admit he's wrong.:D "No care taken, no responsibility accepted" - thus is the way of pseudo-science.
What in the hell is wrong with you?? We all know that Nebraska, Piltdown AND (you're favorite) Montana were incorrect. No one's disputing that. Do you think that pointing that a handful of researchers were wrong 100 years ago negates all of the science since then? Those errors were corrected by scientists and not by folks like you.

If that's the best you've got, you lose. Huge.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#35314 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem. Your statement was riddled with BS. Try again. Try to employ a thing called "honesty."
Problem with logic. Time is irrelevant. Point is: if the rest of that PIG wasn't found, it would have continued to be foisted on the public as being "Nebrasks Man." Ergo, major problem with your methodology = you and your ilk can't be trusted. And, in addition, everyone knows that lying is second nature to you and your ilk and that you CAN'T ever admit you're wrong, as evidenced by the copious, artfully framed excuses that the muppets, like you, are programmed to respond with.
Moreover, it was widely accepted by the evolution community and esteemed members of science were lauding it.
Get lost.
You're full of crap. Period. And you lie.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#35315 Jul 24, 2012
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem. Your statement was riddled with BS. Try again. Try to employ a thing called "honesty."
Problem with logic. Time is irrelevant. Point is: if the rest of that PIG wasn't found, it would have continued to be foisted on the public as being "Nebrasks Man." Ergo, major problem with your methodology = you and your ilk can't be trusted.
The "Problem with Logic" is yours. Time most CERTAINLY is relevant, especially with regards to science. You would want to stop time at the point that those few scientists that DID accept the tooth as evidence for early man. In the days of Nebraska Man, the five years it took to FULLY refute the "finding" was almost instantaneous. That is blatently dishonest.
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text> And, in addition, everyone knows that lying is second nature to you and your ilk and that you CAN'T ever admit you're wrong, as evidenced by the copious, artfully framed excuses that the muppets, like you, are programmed to respond with.
That is exactly wrong. Science is resplendant with examples where it has shown previous "known facts" to be incorrect. Science is always seeking to correct itself.
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>
Moreover, it was widely accepted by the evolution community and esteemed members of science were lauding it.
Yeah.

Except that it wasn't "widely accepted", otherwise "we" would have ignored the evidence that "we" (not the clergy of the day) found that shed doubt on the veracity of the tooth's REAL origins.

And just to remind you, it was SCIENCE, who in a relatively quick time for the day, discredited the notion that this fossil tooth was of hominid origin.
The Dude Destroyer wrote:
<quoted text>Get lost.
Sorry, no.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#35316 Jul 24, 2012
forreal wrote:
<quoted text>If any one is pushing anything on Kids its atheists they are always trying to push or shove dead bones into kids!All animals bone molestors have ruin kids that why there are so many Gangs in America killing eachother!Ted do yourself a favor attend a church service and see your kids get polite!
You really can't seem to get off that horse, even though it's glue.

My first biology teacher was a priest in a parochial school. Later biology teachers include a deacon and regular church-goers. in fact I don't recall a single atheist teaching a single biology class.

Second, what kids are being taught is science. You haven't managed to cobble together a single coherent objection to science, for all your uncoherent ramblings. You not only do not understand sceince, you have proven that you are clueless about your own religious beliefs.

As for politeness, you haven't met my kids, so as usual you are making baseless accusations.

As for going to church, did that, got the tee-shirt, and found it completely unnecessary.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 9 min Mister_ E 147,748
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 1 hr Trouser Cough 29,550
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 1 hr Trouser Cough 40,330
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 1 hr Trouser Cough 54,695
A six word game (Dec '08) 1 hr Trouser Cough 17,626
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 2 hr Heres lookin at y... 6,419
What ?? are you thinking about NOW? 2014 2 hr Michael 458
Missing posters.. (Jan '14) 3 hr SLY WEST 33
Ebola in America 3 hr Just TLC 38
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 4 hr ---Word Woman--- 21,395

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE