The scientist who enjoys debating creationists

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 03:48 PM)Beaker Wrote: Not if the evolution of his brain allowed him to invent other ways to keep warm, such as using the skins of the animals he hunted. Humans had already become less hairy when still in warm climates. The evolution of man's brain allowed him to spread farther afield, even into colder climates where other more tropical species would not survive because they used brain power to overcome the temperature obstacle and adapt.

So your answer is cold climate man evolved into not having hair all over his body because his brain told him he didn't need it? Doesn't really seem too smart on the brain's behalf. I seem man has invented other ways to breath; I wonder how long it will be before our brain tells out body that our lungs are no longer required? Seems more handy just to keep them.  

The bottom line is no matter how sciency you are, you cannot prove evolution anymore that I can prove creation. That is why it is called a theory. You say "See I have proof, here's a fossil?" You cannot show that it transitioned into anything else. I can simply say the fossil was created. You also conveniently can pick a beginning point of this evolution theory and when asked how this beginning point was creared, you have no answer. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-03-2015, 04:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So your answer is cold climate man evolved into not having hair all over his body because his brain told him he didn't need it? Doesn't really seem too smart on the brain's behalf. I seem man has invented other ways to breath; I wonder how long it will be before our brain tells out body that our lungs are no longer required? Seems more handy just to keep them. 

Notice that this man knows absolutely nothing about what natural selection is or how it works. Education didn't help him the first time around. Why do any of you think it would work now?

My first and only rule about "debating" creationism: do not direct any comments towards creationists unless they are sneering with contempt and insult. Shame is the only solution.

[GMDino]

(08-03-2015, 04:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So your answer is cold climate man evolved into not having hair all over his body because his brain told him he didn't need it? Doesn't really seem too smart on the brain's behalf. I seem man has invented other ways to breath; I wonder how long it will be before our brain tells out body that our lungs are no longer required? Seems more handy just to keep them.  

The bottom line is no matter how sciency you are, you cannot prove evolution anymore that I can prove creation. That is why it is called a theory. You say "See I have proof, here's a fossil?" You cannot show that it transitioned into anything else. I can simply say the fossil was created. You also conveniently can pick a beginning point of this evolution theory and when asked how this beginning point was creared, you have no answer. 

False.  There is proof of evolution.  There is no proof of creationism as you present it.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-03-2015, 04:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So your answer is cold climate man evolved into not having hair all over his body because his brain told him he didn't need it? Doesn't really seem too smart on the brain's behalf. I seem man has invented other ways to breath; I wonder how long it will be before our brain tells out body that our lungs are no longer required? Seems more handy just to keep them.  

The bottom line is no matter how sciency you are, you cannot prove evolution anymore that I can prove creation. That is why it is called a theory. You say "See I have proof, here's a fossil?" You cannot show that it transitioned into anything else. I can simply say the fossil was created. You also conveniently can pick a beginning point of this evolution theory and when asked how this beginning point was creared, you have no answer. 

So your point being is something can't come from nothing?

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 04:32 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Notice that this man knows absolutely nothing about what natural selection is or how it works. Education didn't help him the first time around. Why do any of you think it would work now?

My first and only rule about "debating" creationism: do not direct any comments towards creationists unless they are sneering with contempt and insult. Shame is the only solution.

So the fact that I queried as to why evolution of a man in a cold climate would include him shedding his hair shows I know nothing about Natural Selection?
 
 
Maybe we just weren’t educated at the same place.

[Rotobeast]

(08-03-2015, 05:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the fact that I queried as to why evolution of a man in a cold climate would include him shedding his hair shows I know nothing about Natural Selection?
 
 
Maybe we just weren’t educated at the same place.

Perhaps God decided to separate by a little more than language.
A little tweak to skin tone here a little less body hair there.

Referring to Genesis 11:6 through 9, of course.

[BmorePat87]

Oh, man, Bfine is talking about evolution?!?!

Bfine, what was that hilarious website you posted from on the old boards? You know, the one that quoted some famous evolutionary biologist who was talking about the march of progress image. He said that it was flawed because it makes evolution look clean and simple when in reality it was very complicated, but your website only quoted half of that and said that he was arguing against evolution.

Post it again!

[Beaker]

(08-03-2015, 04:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So your answer is cold climate man evolved into not having hair all over his body because his brain told him he didn't need it?

The bottom line is no matter how sciency you are, you cannot prove evolution anymore that I can prove creation. That is why it is called a theory. You say "See I have proof, here's a fossil?" You cannot show that it transitioned into anything else. I can simply say the fossil was created. You also conveniently can pick a beginning point of this evolution theory and when asked how this beginning point was creared, you have no answer. 

No, my answer is that man had already evolved to be less hairy in warmer climates before migrating to cooler ones.

As to the "it's only a theory" rebuttal, look up the definition of a scientific theory and you'll find that rebuttal doesn't work so well. And lastly, as I already told you, evidence for evolution goes way beyond fossils. And even with fossils, more and more transitional fossils are being found all the time. So yes, they have found transitions.

Still waiting on you to provide tangible evidence for creation to support your side of the debate.

[Beaker]

(08-03-2015, 05:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the fact that I queried as to why evolution of a man in a cold climate would include him shedding his hair shows I know nothing about Natural Selection?

Since humans didn't "shed their hair" in cold climates, the answer to your question is yes.

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 06:39 PM)Beaker Wrote: No, my answer is that man had already evolved to be less hairy in warmer climates before migrating to cooler ones.

As to the "it's only a theory" rebuttal, look up the definition of a scientific theory and you'll find that rebuttal doesn't work so well. And lastly, as I already told you, evidence for evolution goes way beyond fossils. And even with fossils, more and more transitional fossils are being found all the time. So yes, they have found transitions.

Still waiting on you to provide tangible evidence for creation to support your side of the debate.

My answer (once again) is that I am and there is no empirical evidence to show that I evolved from a shrew-like creature. Evolutionist try to paint this broad picture and then attempt to fill in the gaps with conjecture (theory) and consider folk ignorant for not going along with there scenarios. They will tell you Nature doesn't jump and yet explain that you must make these huge leaps to explain the evolution of man. You still haven't told me how life itself began if it were not created.

So because man was less hairy when he arrived in the cold climate Nature Selection dictated that he lose what hairy he had once he arrived?

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 06:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Oh, man, Bfine is talking about evolution?!?!

Bfine, what was that hilarious website you posted from on the old boards? You know, the one that quoted some famous evolutionary biologist who was talking about the march of progress image. He said that it was flawed because it makes evolution look clean and simple when in reality it was very complicated, but your website only quoted half of that and said that he was arguing against evolution.

Post it again!

Not sure that I posted the website, but I do believe there was one where some sciency guy stated that that he admitted evolution most likely did not occur as it is depicted in the many of the ape-to-man diagrams we see and that he could not fully explain the transition (so obviously Beaker wasn't the author).

[BmorePat87]

(08-03-2015, 07:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure that I posted the website, but I do believe there was one where some sciency guy stated that that he admitted evolution most likely did not occur as it is depicted in the many of the ape-to-man diagrams we see and that he could not fully explain the transition (so obviously Beaker wasn't the author).

He stated that evolution wasn't some clean cut transition of monkey to man, but rather our evolution was one that involved multiple dead ends along the way. I believe he said we should have an evolutionary bush, not tree, to explain it. 

The website then incorrectly interpreted that as the man admitting that evolution was wrong. There was nothing about not being able to explain it. 

I was just hoping you remembered what the website was. I found it particularly funny.

[Beaker]

(08-03-2015, 07:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My answer (once again) is that I am and there is no empirical evidence to show that I evolved from a shrew-like creature. Evolutionist try to paint this broad picture and then attempt to fill in the gaps with conjecture (theory) and consider folk ignorant for not going along with there scenarios. They will tell you Nature doesn't jump and yet explain that you must make these huge leaps to explain the evolution of man. You still haven't told me how life itself began if it were not created.

So because man was less hairy when he arrived in the cold climate Nature Selection dictated that he lose what hairy he had once he arrived?

You are once again saying evolution is wrong rather than providing evidence that creation is right. Let's see the evidence to support your side.

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 07:44 PM)Beaker Wrote: You are once again saying evolution is wrong rather than providing evidence that creation is right. Let's see the evidence to support your side.

Neither side can prove they are "right"? You're a sciency guy you believe in life from nothing and evolution. I am a bible guy I believe in a supreme being and creation. You will point to broken fossil lines and inconclusive DNA as proof, I will point to the fact that the complexity of man is not random. You go with your belief and I'll go with mine. I really think Ben Carson summed it up (for me) as well as I've ever heard it when he said: "I simply don't have enough faith to believe that something as complex as our ability to rationalize, think, and plan, and have a moral sense of what's right and wrong, just appeared."

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-03-2015, 07:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Neither side can prove they are "right"? You're a sciency guy you believe in life from nothing and evolution. I am a bible guy I believe in a supreme being and creation.

Where did the supreme being come from?

[Rotobeast]

(08-03-2015, 08:19 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Where did the supreme being come from?

Same place all the dense matter in the center of the universe, before the big bang came from.

[MrRager]

(08-03-2015, 08:19 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Where did the supreme being come from?

"On the zeroth day god created god" 

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 08:19 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Where did the supreme being come from?

He didn't come from anywhere. He always was, there was never a time that he did not exist.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-03-2015, 08:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He didn't come from anywhere. He always was, there was never a time that he did not exist.

So he came from nothing?

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 08:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So he came from nothing?

No, nothing comes from nothing.  He has always existed. I know it is a difficult concept to grasp but there always had to be something and that something could not have been matter (Something to do with the second law of thermodynamics).  Luckily for us, after a while that something decided to create.