Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradskii said:
Those were the two main points you made. And wait, no-one’s going to believe this…seriously, they won’t…but you don’t actually believe what you posted!
Click to expand...
Remember, the old obligatory hat tip to evolution. It has to be in the paper or it won’t get published.
 
buffalo said:
Remember, the old obligatory hat tip to evolution. It has to be in the paper or it won’t get published.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. I am sure Ken Ham will publish an article that does not ‘hat tip’ to evolution. ICR and the DI also have science journals where you can publish your work.

There are also a number of pay-to-publish journals, who will print pretty much anything.
 
rossum said:
Wrong again. I am sure Ken Ham will publish an article that does not ‘hat tip’ to evolution. ICR and the DI also have science journals where you can publish your work.

There are also a number of pay-to-publish journals, who will print pretty much anything.
Click to expand...
Nonsense… and you know it. People have lost their jobs by publishing the flaws of evolution.

Just imagine the blowback and the ad homonims if I posted anything Ham.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Nonsense… and you know it. People have lost their jobs by publishing the flaws of evolution.

Just imagine the blow-back and the ad homonims if I posted anything Ham.
Click to expand...
To be fair its not like religion hasn’t done that too. Maybe its not about evolution then and more about ideology? People will people after all.

But hey if you got something proving a whole new theory shoot.
 
Anrakyr said:
To be fair its not like religion hasn’t done that too. Maybe its not about evolution then and more about ideology? People will people after all.
Click to expand...
Evolutionism is ideology and based on worldview.

Now we have experimental proof of the limits of natural selection and random mutation. Any short term advantage is swamped by the loss of function.
 
Adam was smarter than we gave him credit for.

And now we have John Hawks saying:

So, what does this discovery mean? To me, it solidifies the case that ancient human relatives were a lot smarter and more adaptable than we used to give them credit for.

Loading…

www.sapiens.org

New Hominin Shakes the Family Tree—Again​

What does the discovery of Homo luzonensis mean for our understanding of humanity’s history?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Those were the two main points you made. And wait, no-one’s going to believe this…seriously, they won’t…but you don’t actually believe what you posted!
Click to expand...
Remember, the old obligatory hat tip to evolution. It has to be in the paper or it won’t get published.
Click to expand...
A hat tip to evolution? It has to be in the paper? The article is ABOUT evolution. What on earth are you talking about? A global atheist conspiracy of scientists?

It’s a shed full of evolutionary facts and figures which you expressly reject. And you post it to show it proves a point you want to make? The only hats that are relevant to this thread are the tin foil versions.
 
buffalo said:
Adam was smarter than we gave him credit for.

And now we have John Hawks saying:

So, what does this discovery mean? To me, it solidifies the case that ancient human relatives were a lot smarter and more adaptable than we used to give them credit for.

Homo luzonensis Shakes the Hominin Family Tree - SAPIENS

New Hominin Shakes the Family Tree—Again​

What does the discovery of Homo luzonensis mean for our understanding of humanity’s history?
Click to expand...
Nah - you can ignore that article. It has to mention evolution as a means by which the new hominin…um…evolved. Either the article wouldn’t have been published.
 
buffalo said:
Adam was smarter than we gave him credit for.

And now we have John Hawks saying:

So, what does this discovery mean? To me, it solidifies the case that ancient human relatives were a lot smarter and more adaptable than we used to give them credit for.

Homo luzonensis Shakes the Hominin Family Tree - SAPIENS

New Hominin Shakes the Family Tree—Again​

What does the discovery of Homo luzonensis mean for our understanding of humanity’s history?
Click to expand...
What do you think of this quote in the article:

‘In some ways, these bones resemble hominins that lived more than 2 million years ago…’

Can the author be trusted!
 
Here is the take away:

it solidifies the case that ancient human relatives were a lot smarter and more adaptable than we used to give them credit for.

They weren’t the dumb brutes that evo depictions make them out to be.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Here is the take away:

it solidifies the case that ancient human relatives were a lot smarter and more adaptable than we used to give them credit for.

They weren’t the dumb brutes that evo depictions make them out to be.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
And you get this from what you already admit is from a man with a bias and from his own website. Again, if you don’t trust him or believe what he writes, why link to him?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Then why do you link to him to make a point?
Click to expand...
Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while…
Click to expand...
S’funny how the nuts always align with your bias and that which doesn’t…you simply dismiss.

You lost all your credibility many hundreds of posts ago. Do you really feel the need to confirm it so often?
 
Bradskii said:
S’funny how the nuts always align with your bias and that which doesn’t…you simply dismiss.

You lost all your credibility many hundreds of posts ago. Do you really feel the need to confirm it so often?
Click to expand...
Back at you.
 
Do you believe that the Church is mistaken in it’s affirmation that the faithful may acknowledge the veracity of evolution while holding to Catholic dogma?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top