A Civil Discussion: Evolution, Science, Theology, Atheism, Climate

Thing1 said:
Evolution is science. You're skeptical about evolution?

It exists. And it really isn't a huge leap to see where man evolved from, like we just popped out of nowhere. It's a pretty clear path in the fossil record from the trees to savannahs to now.
Click to expand...

Yes, evolution is science and I’m skeptical of evolution, simultaneously and all at once lol. Science advances through skepticism.

The scientists made the claim that our brains are the result of ‘a categorically different selection process’. Ostensibly, not found in any other species. Otherwise it wouldn’t be ‘categorically different’.

I’m agnostic about the exact process that made us what we are. But, I find it amusing/ironic that if humans did in fact miraculously appear on the scene, scientists would be forced to make appeals to ‘categorically different selection systems’ and just-so stories about culture speeding up evolution—in order to account for such a rapid increase in brain size over such a short period of geological time.
 
Darth Omar said:
Yes, evolution is science and I’m skeptical of evolution, simultaneously and all at once lol. Science advances through skepticism.

The scientists made the claim that our brains are the result of ‘a categorically different selection process’. Ostensibly, not found in any other species. Otherwise it wouldn’t be ‘categorically different’.

I’m agnostic about the exact process that made us what we are. But, I find it amusing/ironic that if humans did in fact miraculously appear on the scene, scientists would be forced to make appeals to ‘categorically different selection systems’ and just-so stories about culture speeding up evolution—in order to account for such a rapid increase in brain size over such a short period of geological time.
Click to expand...

It's not like they're scrambling wildly - everything you listed at the end is plausible. You're the one ascribing "miraculous."
 
Thing1 said:
It's not like they're scrambling wildly - everything you listed at the end is plausible. You're the one ascribing "miraculous."
Click to expand...

It’s implausible [at minimum] or they wouldn’t have had to invoke a hyper fast selection process that’s never been observed before.

Aka ‘categorically different’.
 
Darth Omar said:
It’s implausible [at minimum] or they wouldn’t have had to invoke a hyper fast selection process that’s never been observed before.

Aka ‘categorically different’.
Click to expand...

No - you're drawing conclusions where none exist.

"Categorically different" does NOT = "implausible." Not anywhere, not anytime.
 
Thing1 said:
No - you're drawing conclusions where none exist.

"Categorically different" does NOT = "implausible." Not anywhere, not anytime.
Click to expand...

"To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time - a few tens of millions of years - requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits."

As for how all of this happened, the professor suggests that the development of human society may be the reason.
_________

It’s implausible enough they had to invoke something beyond the typical processes that produces new traits.

The professor has no idea what caused the implausible jump but he took a stab at it lol. The degree of separation between human and animal intelligence has yet to be explained.

It makes us unique.
 
Darth Omar said:
"To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time - a few tens of millions of years - requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits."

As for how all of this happened, the professor suggests that the development of human society may be the reason.
_________

It’s implausible enough they had to invoke something beyond the typical processes that produces new traits.

The professor has no idea what caused the implausible jump but he took a stab at it lol. The degree of separation between human and animal intelligence has yet to be explained.

It makes us unique.
Click to expand...

Everything you said above is a complete stretch of what was said in that article. Nothing says or implies "implausible" to any degree. Nowhere does the professor - who you're relying upon for your entire flawed conclusion - seem clueless or like he has "no idea." He suggests that it may have been the development of human society, where increased intelligence was even more required to survive.

And we're "unique" only like 1,000 other animals are unique w/ the individual adaptations they needed to survive. We don't do anything "unique" - just on a different scale.
 
Thing1 said:
Everything you said above is a complete stretch of what was said in that article. Nothing says or implies "implausible" to any degree. Nowhere does the professor - who you're relying upon for your entire flawed conclusion - seem clueless or like he has "no idea." He suggests that it may have been the development of human society, where increased intelligence was even more required to survive.

And we're "unique" only like 1,000 other animals are unique w/ the individual adaptations they needed to survive. We don't do anything "unique" - just on a different scale.
Click to expand...

This is like nailing jello to the wall.

Again, every species is ‘unique’ by definition. So your statement is meaningless. Humans are uniquely intelligent—-and I’m not cataloging the many things humans are capable that animals just aren’t, again and again.

The professor’s suggestion was just that—a suggestion. His ‘suggestion’ absolutely does not prove evolution adequately explains the intelligence chasm that exists between man and the lower animals.

The one you stubbornly deny exists.
 
Darth Omar said:
This is like nailing jello to the wall.

Again, every species is ‘unique’ by definition. So your statement is meaningless. Humans are uniquely intelligent—-and I’m not cataloging the many things humans are capable that animals just aren’t, again and again.

The professor’s suggestion was just that—a suggestion. His ‘suggestion’ absolutely does not prove evolution adequately explains the intelligence chasm that exists between man and the lower animals.

The one you stubbornly deny exists.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying anything or saying anything meaningless. I'm correctly pointing out that you mischaracterized the conclusions of that article.
 
They so want Jebuss to exist, "oh preeese preese say there's a chance....!"

Sorry Christians, that's the chimpanzee part of your brains talking, causing you to misrepresent science, stretch truth, seek gaps in science and call them chasms,
deny evidence, suggest the thousands of fossils that evidence a seamless line to man are underrepresented.

The sad part is if we did things your way, FRancis Crick would never even discovered the dbl helix and we'd all be eating berries and picking bugs off
each other. Get outa town, science haters.
 
Truth Detector said:
Okay; I want to revisit this theory of evolution.

If man evolved from monkeys as the theory goes, why didn't the OTHER monkeys and apes evolve?
Click to expand...

Because humans are not descended from apes. Humans, chimpanzees, bonobos are distantly related and descended and diverged from a common primate ancestor about 8 million years ago.
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
If man is causing global warming, as the quacks claim, why did the planet warm and freeze several times before man ever invented the gasoline combustible engine?
Click to expand...

Because climate responds to whatever forcings cause it to change, whether it is volcanic emissions, variations in solar radiation, Milankovitch cycles.

The current climate change is a response to human emissions of heat trapping greenhouse gases.
 
Cypress said:
Because climate responds to whatever forcings cause it to change, whether it is volcanic emissions, variations in solar radiation, Milankovitch cycles.

The current climate change is a response to human emissions of heat trapping greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...

You cannot trap heat.
No gas or vapor has the capability to trap heat.

Define 'climate change'.

Climate isn't a force. There is no such thing as 'forcings' of climate.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
 
Cypress said:
Because humans are not descended from apes. Humans, chimpanzees, bonobos are distantly related and descended and diverged from a common primate ancestor about 8 million years ago.
Click to expand...

So, if the Theory of Natural Selection is true, what created all the variations?
 
Into the Night said:
You cannot trap heat.
No gas or vapor has the capability to trap heat.

Define 'climate change'.

Climate isn't a force. There is no such thing as 'forcings' of climate.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Click to expand...

Incorrect on all counts.
 
Truth Detector said:
Okay; I want to revisit this theory of evolution.

If man evolved from monkeys as the theory goes, why didn't the OTHER monkeys and apes evolve?
Click to expand...

Is this actually a serious question or a rib?

I honestly think that Bullshit Blob is serious.
Thus I must withdraw from the conversation, as a "civility" standard has been arbitrarily invoked.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Is this actually a serious question or a rib?

I honestly think that Bullshit Blob is serious.
Thus I must withdraw from the conversation, as a "civility" standard has been arbitrarily invoked.
Click to expand...

Evasion. So you won't answer the question put to you. Probably because you can't. Buzzword fallacy.
 
Into the Night said:
Still trying to ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, eh? Still evading the question, eh? Define 'climate change'.
Click to expand...
The first and second laws of thermodynamics are not violated.

No new energy is created in global warming. More solar radiation is retained and less infrared thermal radiation is remitted to space because GHG effectively acts as a thermal blanket so to speak. The distribution and transport of heat is changed, but no new energy is created

Earth and it's atmosphere are not a closed system, so the second law of thermodynamics does not apply either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top