A stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

[ok doser]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof or evidence.

the fossil record clearly does not support phyletic gradualism, which is why punctuated equilibrium was proposed. The problem with punctuated equilibrium is that it should be demonstrable in the lab, but it isn't

 

[Idolater]

the fossil record clearly does not support phyletic gradualism, which is why punctuated equilibrium was proposed. The problem with punctuated equilibrium is that it should be demonstrable in the lab, but it isn't

This is the kind of thing that proponents of an idea that is an extraordinary claim are incentivized to couch in jargon to hide the extraordinary nature of the claim, because they all know that there is no extraordinary proof to back up their extraordinary claim.

Quite unlike for example the Resurrection of Christ. There's an extraordinary claim that's backed by extraordinary evidence. In fact Christ's Resurrection ought to serve as a case in point for anyone trying to argue an extraordinary claim. 'Doesn't sound like any of these particular claims of evolutionists are credible.

 

[Stripe]

Was there ever a time [when] there was just one pair of German shepherds [or poodles]?

Using a dog breed is not useful, given that the names used were arbitrarily assigned at an arbitrary time. We could say that yes there was a time that there were two and only two German shepherds, but that would be a semantic assertion and not useful at all to this discussion, or we could insist that the distinction would be lost amid the vast variety of breeds. You'd obviously delight at the second assertion because you'd think that dog breeds map onto people and apes somehow. However, that would be to beg the question, ie, you'd be assuming the truth of your theory rather than testing it.

One pair of Merino sheep?

Ultimately in the same basket as dogs. Sheep, regardless of breed, come from the sheep kind, which includes goats, and the names that have been given to the distinct groups are arbitrary, given at an arbitrary time.

So your question is useless.

 

[chair]

Using a dog breed is not useful, given that the names used were arbitrarily assigned at an arbitrary time..

And there is nothing arbitrary in saying Ape 1 is non-human, and Ape 2 is human?

 

[Stripe]

And there is nothing arbitrary in saying Ape 1 is non-human, and Ape 2 is human?

Of course it would be arbitrary. It would also be assuming the truth of the Darwinian model.

Do you want a rational discussion, or do you demand that people sell themselves out to your ideas?

 

[chair]

Of course it would be arbitrary. It would also be assuming the truth of the Darwinian model.

Do you want a rational discussion, or do you demand that people sell themselves out to your ideas?

Ah, so we are supposed to judge evolution based on creationist assumptions?

The question is whether the TOE makes sense, i.e. is consistent with itself and with known facts. Not whether it matches the Creationist assumptions, or Zulu legends, or Chinese mythology.

 

[Stripe]

Ah, so we are supposed to judge evolution based on creationist assumptions?

From begging the question to a straw-man fallacy.

You're supposed to present an idea that is testable and falsifiable. Then you're supposed to follow the evidence until your idea is shown impossible. You know: Science.

The question is whether the TOE makes sense, i.e. is consistent with itself and with known facts. Not whether it matches the Creationist assumptions, or Zulu legends, or Chinese mythology.

And the way to do that does not include assuming its truth when faced with a challenge.

 

[chair]

From begging the question to a straw-man fallacy.

You're supposed to present an idea that is testable and falsifiable. Then you're supposed to follow the evidence until your idea is shown impossible. You know: Science.

And the way to do that does not include assuming its truth when faced with a challenge.

Ah, stripe with his "challenges".
The only "challenge" in the OP was that the TOE doesn't accept the Biblical idea that humans started out as a single pair. Well, guilty as charged. So what?

 

[Yorzhik]

Ah, stripe with his "challenges".
The only "challenge" in the OP was that the TOE doesn't accept the Biblical idea that humans started out as a single pair. Well, guilty as charged. So what?

You assumed that there was some ape-like being that turned into humans. That may not be true. At least it doesn't have evidence beyond common descentists requiring it to be true for their idea to be true.

A less arbitrary way to figure out which populations belong with another would be to find out if their DNA can procreate together. That's why a type of dog, which can breed with other types of dogs, is not a good measure to figure out if a population is unique. A mule would be a better test since a mule can't breed back with a donkey or horse. But you'd rather play games with vague notions of types of dogs because you aren't interested in whether common descent is right or wrong, you are interested in winning the argument.

 

[Stripe]

Ah, stripe with his "challenges".

:idunno:

They aren't logical fallacies.

So what?

The description that arises from your beliefs is funny. Basically, the biosphere is just one amorphous entity that only has arbitrary or semantic distinctions. A person is indistinct from a walnut except by a classification system that someone made up.

Sure, OP doesn't disprove Darwinism, but it sure is funny watching you squirm. :chuckle:

 

[chair]

:idunno:

They aren't logical fallacies.



The description that arises from your beliefs is funny. Basically, the biosphere is just one amorphous entity that only has arbitrary or semantic distinctions. A person is indistinct from a walnut except by a classification system that someone made up.

Sure, OP doesn't disprove Darwinism, but it sure is funny watching you squirm. :chuckle:

Squirm?
You need new glasses!

 

[Stripe]

Squirm?You need new glasses!

Your question was useless.

 

[chair]

Your question was useless.

So how's the weather in Taipei?

 

[Right Divider]

So how's the weather in Taipei?

Evolving :french:

 

[chair]

I was wondering why I sometimes see this thread, and other times not. It has to do with 7D7 who started it- I have him on ignore. That's why I can't see the OP. And that's why the premise is so absurd and pseudo-logical. I'm rather disappointed that other creationists here have jumped on his bandwagon. Just because he is "on your side" doesn't mean he is making sense. More identity politics, I guess.

See you in some other thread someday.

 

[Stripe]

I'm rather disappointed that other creationists here have jumped on his bandwagon.

Notice how there's only one reply to this thread that even comes close to "jumping on the bandwagon." :chuckle:

 

[chair]

Notice how there's only one reply to this thread that even comes close to "jumping on the bandwagon." :chuckle:

You really are bored, aren't you?

 

[Stripe]

You really are bored, aren't you?

No. :idunno:

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

The unmitigated stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

If Darwinism was true, the definition of what it means to be classed as a "human being" occurs when:

• the product of two non-humans create a human being through procreation;
• the human being who was created created another human being through procreation with another non-human;
• two non-humans procreate two or more humans through the act of procreation, humans capable of procreation;
• two or more non-humans spontaneously change into human beings when acted upon by some external source.

Someone who actually believes in Darwinism may explain it better, but looking at it from my Christian standpoint, I don't see the logic or science behind Darwinism. We know the universe did have a beginning. It makes more sense that there is a God who created two human beings.

 

[7djengo7]

If Darwinism was true, the definition of what it means to be classed as a "human being" occurs when:

• the product of two non-humans create a human being through procreation;
• the human being who was created created another human being through procreation with another non-human;
• two non-humans procreate two or more humans through the act of procreation, humans capable of procreation;
• two or more non-humans spontaneously change into human beings when acted upon by some external source.

Someone who actually believes in Darwinism may explain it better, but looking at it from my Christian standpoint, I don't see the logic or science behind Darwinism. We know the universe did have a beginning. It makes more sense that there is a God who created two human beings.

Darwinists despise logic. Darwinists despise the law of the excluded middle. Darwinists despise the fact that every thing is either a human or a non-human. Darwinists wish that something could somehow be neither human nor non-human.