Some Evidence Against Evolution

quote:

---

Fascinating response, I assume your view is not too popular with your fellow evolutionists ?
What is that common ancestor ?

---

The view in question is quite orthodox. Your lack of education on the topic is painfully obvious when you question this. The common ancestor might be said to be an ape, but is not a chimpanzee or gorilla or any other ape alive today. Does than answer your question?

quote:

---

Also, I am surprised at the lack of response to your reply by other Darwinists. What is your response when they vehemently disagree with what you said in the reply I am responding to?

---

Hehe. That is a mess of replies. As for Darwinists, I believe they are largely dead. There is no cult of personality around Mr. Darwin, great though he was. He was a groundbreaker but his work was incomplete and sometimes even wrong. That's science for you. We update and change ideas as the evidence motivates us.

quote:

---

The problem I have with evolution is that it just doesn't make sense.

---

You can't understand it, which is not surprising. It is obvious that you have not educated yourself sufficiently to justify an objection. You don't have to agree, but your disagreement is hollow and meaningless until you understand the relevant concepts.

quote:

---

I see brilliant scientists coming up with every explanation of the bones and fossils that they unearth, which said explanations ring hollow.

---

Actually, what is hollow is your incessant appeals to incredulity. Brilliant scientists may be wrong in certain areas of speculation, but their methods have been refined for centuries to detect flaws in reasoning or methods.

quote:

---

It just seems like they will conclude anything and everything but God. They can DEDUCE like crazy except the one deducement that God requires which is that what is made was deliberately made so that one could deduce that a Creator made it. {Romans 1:20}

---

I think the word you're looking for is "deduction." Unfortunately, one can only deduce from nature what one already believes about a deity. Funny how the only people you ever hear claiming that nature will lead us to God are the ones who have already been led to him by other means....

quote:

---

I was vague, I meant evidence of the missing links that transition apes to humans.
According to Richard Milton very little if any of these evidences actually exist and he is not a creationist.

---

Logical fallacy: argument from authority.I know nothing of Richard Milton and his credentials are very much in question here. Even if he were a freaking Nobel Prize winner, it would be bad form to assert that something is true just because he believes it. You had better have an understanding of the facts behind his supposed belief if you want them to mean anything here. At the very least, you need to paraphrase the facts he cites, and tell us why they are relevant.

quote:

---

Lets assume there is SOME, and lets assume they are missing link transitional types. Why not a LOT ? It seems to be meager at best which does not justify evolution to be true on the scale that Darwinists say that it is. Thank You.

---

Only a very small portion of the earth surface environments that have existed are still resting near the surface today. Only a few of those saw the right conditions for fossils to be preserved. Only a few of those have been explored. Need I continue?We are lucky we have anything (pray tell, how many modern humans do you expect will end up fossilized?) and what we have still tells us that there have been many distinct species of primates with varying degrees of the qualities that distinguish us from other apes. Cranial capacity and upright locomotion are two of the major ones, and there are fossils which simultaneously follow both these continuua (and which correlate to radiometric dating of the fossils) between us and chimp-like organisms. Tentativity dictates that we refrain from calling this a direct line of descendants. It appears that the lines have branched and many have ended in nothing, and there are probably many missing fossils. However, the general trend of selection over the millenia has favored the change from australopithecines to modern man. Try the thread "A Line of Skulls for Mike the Viz" if you want to know more.

quote:

---

No, his peers in the study of nature did not think he was a heretic.

---

Aye, and they're probably spinning in their graves at being mistaken for the leaders of religious orthodoxy that nearly had him killed for the crime of discovering and publicizing *gasp* the truth (!)

Of course we should not assume specific details about what fossils might be there. However, most consider it reasonable to interpolate. Even a small sampling of fossils suggests many degrees of uprightness and cranium size, and the age of the fossils decreases as these qualities increase. From these facts, the conclusion that humans reached the high end of the continuum by evolving from a four-legged primate with a small braincase is not a difficult or unreasonable one.

quote:

---

Concerning your insulting comment about my knowledge of science:
The reply that you responded to was my reply to another persons reply.

​

In that other persons reply they plainly explained that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

​

The wording used implied that this person also wanted me to ask the question, "What is that common ancestor ?" So seeing this I did.

​

I think I know what the answer is but I didn't want to assume the posters answer. {there are only so many answers to this question}

​

Then you enter in with a reply.

​

All because I asked "What is that common ancestor ?" This simple respectful question directed at another member becomes a springboard for you to conclude that I know nothing about science.

​

In context this is a very unintelligent deduction.

---

Apologies if I've gotten you wrong, but you seemed sure that the statement you questioned would find disagreement among most evolutionists, when it is in fact quite orthodox and among the most basic tenets of evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

Your quickness to fit me with a dunce cap is completely wIthout merit based upon the context of the exchange I just referenced.

---

Maybe so. In the larger context of your posting here, I maintain that you have a lot to learn about modern science.

quote:

---

You also inaccurately deduce that the only people who can deduce the Creator from what is made came to believe from some other means.
Deism is the term that classifies persosns who believe God created the universe but He does not intrude into the things of time nor can He be known.

---

And how does one become a deist? I know they don't all independently reach the same conclusion without being taught something about God before hand.I have never met anyone, making the claim you make, who could honestly say that they just looked at the sky, or a sparrow, or a volcano, and said "hey, I should believe in one single god who made this, just because I'm seeing it right now." Everyone who believes in a god today does so because someone told them to. EVERYONE. Moreover, even if they could make that first step, they'd have to also infer a whole system of belief as well, or there would be no religion to practice.

My desire for God began with indoctrination, literally beginning before I can even remember. I just wasn't impressionable enough to retain it forever. I was pushed into a mold for two decades (in fact, some family members still try) but eventually I found the space to form myself. All those years, without a doubt in the world, I felt exactly what I was told to expect. How do you know you're any different? A feeling is never enough to answer that.Oh yeah. We're off topic. You can start another thread if you want.I have to run, but I'll see if I can review the other posts in the morning.

quote:

---

Ned: I do not understand how you cannot understand the statement that you pasted and cutted.
I am not trying to be a ***hole with you but what I said is neo- Darwinism 101. I just don't get what you don't get.

---

You may as well type the word out. The meaning expressed is identical....

quote:

---

The quote mining from Richard Milton is the only "scientific" evidence that he can throw up.

---

I find that a remarkably appropriate (and hilarious) choice of words.