Status Report: The Invulnerable Refutation of Darwinism

It is evident that you either never studied evolution or slept through the class. Men didn't "morph" from anything. Chimps and Humans evolved from a common ancestor. Again I say I would rather have the "Atheist Buffoonery" than the Religious Buffoonery. Evidence over blind faith.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Hi, Bluescat. Now, women, on the other hand... they morph from ribs. But, suggesting that men morph or evolve from anything at all... utter blasphemy. Careful, man: you could get smitten with belief in evolution for that heresy.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Sure they do... I hope your paper takes this important evidence into account Ray.

---

Mutate and Survive

You do know that there is a running joke that America is called Dumbfuckistan for this very reason, don't you?Keep going Ray, you are proving it right.Edited by Larni, : Spelling

I'm maybe picking you up wrong Ray, but what I am saying is that even in my limited knowlegde of evolution I know that evolution does not propose that humans evolved from apes.I don't know a single evolutionist who claims this, so do you have a reference I can look up where an evolutionist claims that humans evolved from apes?

While the argument that humans evolved from modern apes is erroneous, I think that the modern ape/human common ancestor might well also be considered an ape. Indeed, humans themselves might well be considered to be a variety of ape.I like a comment I found at a Yahoo group:

quote:

---

9. If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?

​

In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this "pussyfooting", as he called it. He said, "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 [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

---

Specific sourceMoose

I don't see how you're going to get anywhere until you begin saying things that are actually true. In a discussion where clear thinking and evidence are required, your goal seems to be to maintain a state of confusion and emotional pique. In science the strength of a position is governed by its degree of correspondence to the real world and not by the emotional weight behind it.--Percy

Brian, my friend, you have simply made a bad error: evolution, since Darwin, says mankind evolved from an ancient ape ancestor that lived millions of years ago.Ray

I completely agree.Ray

British wankery.Ray

It may me wankery , but it is the truth. I am an American.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

I'd rather masturbate than be a dumbfuck.

The way you're conducting yourself in this discussion indicates that you not only don't agree, you don't even understand what it is you claim to agree with.The theory of evolution is accepted as valid science because it is knowledge gained through the scientific method. There is neither science nor method in your arguments here, only false statements and emotional appeals. You will not make any scientifically valid progress until you begin saying things that are actually true, and begin conducting your investigations in a way consistent with the scientific method.--Percy

We have no idea as to what you are talking about. ....by evolutionists. Antievolutionists reject evolution to be valid science because the evidence does not support the claims, and because the evidence is interpreted by a philosophical scheme that does not allow any other conclusion other than evolution. Circular question begging.The scientific method is first and foremost observation. You are silently alluding to testability and the false assumption that Creationism-Design to fail in this crucial respect. Of course evolution is not testable in the way that you claim it to be. This is supported by the fact that evolution is an interpretation of evidence. This means evolutionists are running a rigged lottery since the interpretation is not subject falsification----not ever, but it is misrepresented to be just that. The only aspect of evolution that is truly on the table, eligible for falsification, revision, or modification, is causation and tempo. But the explanation or interpretation of evidence in favor of perpetual transmutation producing common ancestry is off the table and not subject to falsification or revision. Straw man. Blanket misrepresentation. More straw men, and their erection is a bad idea since anyone can scroll back and confirm.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : add text.

"What is something that a double agent would say?"Alex: "correct....please select again."RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : add bracketEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : fix coding