• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ben Carson: ‘I Do Believe in the Six-Day Creation’ of the World

Okay, well the first thing on there looks like an ape or a chimp. And I've always heard people say we basically evolved from them, at least until this thread. I see things that look exactly like the ape depicted in the picture in today's world and I of course see humans every day. I've never seen anything in between, and the only answer so far is "hey dumbass...hey idiot, what we evolved from looked exactly like today's ape but it wasn't". Sorry, doesn't sound like a simple clear cut answer and I don't know how anyone can justify the difference between today's ape and the one in the evolution picture.

I don't mind the thought of us evolving at all. I just think it's ridiculous when you talk so arrogantly about science as if it's so easy but you can't easily explain things that, according to you, any idiot should understand, like evolution and global warming.

The word you're looking for is "chimp." There is no species called an "ape." "Ape" is a class of animals, to which humans belong. Humans are apes.

But no, it does not look like a modern chimp. Much smaller head. Different coat. Different muscle structure.

This has been explained to you over and over in very simple terms. People have even tried pictures.
 
It's a highly simplified drawing for children, or for adults who never learned anything because their religious fundamentalist parents insisted on homeschooling and therefore never exposed them to Satan's Science.

That's the most basic and well known description of evolution I've ever seen, and I went to public school.

Now you know why no one ever wants to hear a lib talk for anymore than 2 minutes, why you can't have a successful talk show or cable program. Whenever you start to lose an argument, you just change your theory. You have an end justifies the means mentality and it's getting you nowhere kid.
 
Okay, well the first thing on there looks like an ape or a chimp. And I've always heard people say we basically evolved from them, at least until this thread. I see things that look exactly like the ape depicted in the picture in today's world and I of course see humans every day. I've never seen anything in between, and the only answer so far is "hey dumbass...hey idiot, what we evolved from looked exactly like today's ape but it wasn't". Sorry, doesn't sound like a simple clear cut answer and I don't know how anyone can justify the difference between today's ape and the one in the evolution picture.

I don't mind the thought of us evolving at all. I just think it's ridiculous when you talk so arrogantly about science as if it's so easy but you can't easily explain things that, according to you, any idiot should understand, like evolution and global warming.

Do you believe the picture you attached was in actuality a photograph that someone took of five bipeds in varying states of evolution?
 
Because there is a beginning point (ape or chimp) and an end point (human), both of which we see in today's world, why should it be unreasonable to see what goes on in between?


1) humans are apes



2)
perhaps this will help you
DOYusSR.jpg
 
Okay, well the first thing on there looks like an ape or a chimp. And I've always heard people say we basically evolved from them, at least until this thread. I see things that look exactly like the ape depicted in the picture in today's world and I of course see humans every day. I've never seen anything in between, and the only answer so far is "hey dumbass...hey idiot, what we evolved from looked exactly like today's ape but it wasn't". Sorry, doesn't sound like a simple clear cut answer and I don't know how anyone can justify the difference between today's ape and the one in the evolution picture.

I don't mind the thought of us evolving at all. I just think it's ridiculous when you talk so arrogantly about science as if it's so easy but you can't easily explain things that, according to you, any idiot should understand, like evolution and global warming.

No, what we evolved from doesn't look exactly like today's apes. That image you posted is just an illustration.

Does this help your understanding?
 
That's the most basic and well known description of evolution I've ever seen, and I went to public school.
We know. It's the most basic description. Try to understand that reality is much more complicated.

Now you know why no one ever wants to hear a lib talk for anymore than 2 minutes, why you can't have a successful talk show or cable program. Whenever you start to lose an argument, you just change your theory. You have an end justifies the means mentality and it's getting you nowhere kid.

The theory hasn't changed. Evolution has always been a branching tree, not a single file line. You're just not taking the time to really understand the theory, declaring victory and being snotty about it.
 
We know. It's the most basic description. Try to understand that reality is much more complicated.



The theory hasn't changed. Evolution has always been a branching tree, not a single file line. You're just not taking the time to really understand the theory, declaring victory and being snotty about it.

Thanks Deuche, I'll try my best!
 
Thanks Deuche, I'll try my best!

You outright admitted that the illustration you posted is the most basic. So why do you get so upset about liberals "changing" the theory when they point out a more complicated picture?

I should also point out that theories do, in fact, change. All the time. In science, that is seen as a good thing.
 
There's just No excuse for Ignorance, even if you're a 1000% Right-winger like Ben Carson: a doctor, no less.

Nobody knows. Science is being arrogant when they tell us how life started several billion years ago. It's all speculation.
 
That's the most basic and well known description of evolution I've ever seen, and I went to public school.

Now you know why no one ever wants to hear a lib talk for anymore than 2 minutes, why you can't have a successful talk show or cable program. Whenever you start to lose an argument, you just change your theory. You have an end justifies the means mentality and it's getting you nowhere kid.

I was taught all about the proven science of evolution, and I went to catholic school.

The theory hasn't changed, and evolution is proven, that you willfully ignore science is your problem.
 
mbig... less 90% Truncated by TextDriversKill said:
There's just No excuse for Ignorance, even if you're a 1000% Right-winger like Ben Carson: a doctor, no less.
Nobody knows. Science is being arrogant when they tell us how life started several billion years ago. It's all speculation.
1.You short-quoted and Mischaracterized my post.
I was speaking about Evolution, NOT (look it up) abiogenesis/how life started.

2. Science does NOT claim to "know how life started."
Evolution, the theory and Fact, describes the processes After that life started.
 
Last edited:
Nobody knows. Science is being arrogant when they tell us how life started several billion years ago. It's all speculation.

Science is a disciplined process for acquiring knowledge and seeking to explain observed phenomena. Science isn't a guy named Larry who sits on the couch, watches Breaking Bad and occasionally participates on online debate forums.
 
It's a fact. ProgLibComs only believe in the parts of Evolution they chose, and ignore the other parts. Natural Selection has very little relevance to ProgLibComs, and thus, they don't really believe in Evolution as science has presented it.

You can't say "insert left wing name" doesn't believe in evolution because they don't support social darwinism. LOL.
 
I was taught all about the proven science of evolution, and I went to catholic school.

The theory hasn't changed, and evolution is proven, that you willfully ignore science is your problem.

True, evolution is fact to the point it is law, the only thing debatable is Darwinian evolution, but IMO that is undeniable as well, yet to be fair it's still not law, the only weakness to creation is there is no evidence for it, even irreducible complexity has never stood up to any reasonable scrutiny.
 
I was taught all about the Proven science of evolution, and I went to catholic school.

The theory hasn't changed, and evolution is proven, that you willfully ignore science is your problem.
True, evolution is fact to the point it is Law, the only thing debatable is Darwinian evolution, but IMO that is undeniable as well, yet to be fair it's still not Law, the only weakness to creation is there is no evidence for it, even irreducible complexity has never stood up to any reasonable scrutiny.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science,
but their arguments don't hold up

By John Rennie (Editor-in-Chief)
June 17, 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American

[......]
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a Law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.
[......]
 
Last edited:
The press is letting this slide because he's black but if a white candidate said this, the press would crucify him.

Post #2 crucified that claim, haha.

I guess this time it wasn't that pesky Jew-controlled media helping minorities war against whites.
 
Well, I see you've brought up this Social Darwinism thing. SD is a creation from the 1800's and doesn't exist. The fact is Evolution either is or isn't. As you've admitted, you don't want to live in a survival of the fittest society. But that is what brought modern man to the point it is today. However, it would seem there are many who reject Evolution because of the natural selection aspect of it.
Again, either evolution is, or isn't. There is no in between, as far as I can tell. Yet, that is where people who demand evolution be the only consideration find themselves.
No, I don't hate science at all. I've patterned my life's work on exploiting it.
I wonder how evolution will be impacted by those who seek to change it's natural progress? For that is what many, if not most, liberals, etc., are supporting every day.

Well, based on most of your rhetoric, you would probably love a society where we let the weak to die and everyone fends for themselves, but that would be against every reason we created society in the first place. You've made a childish argument that in order to understand how nature has brought us here, we must continue doing that same thing forever and until the end of time. Might want to change that "slightly conservative" to "fanatically conservative".

As I said, if you can disprove evolution, present your evidence, have it peer reviewed, then become mind blowingly rich and famous. You could be the one person in history to disprove the mountains upon mountains of evidence, gathered over 150 years, so go ahead.

That's really very simple. Explain Natural Selection in Evolution Theory.

I already did that, and you failed to even grasp what it meant. Apparently you either think genetic variations can't occur, or they can't be an advantage or disadvantage in a particular environment. Personally I think you just reject anything that conflicts with your narrow-minded worldview.

Okay, well the first thing on there looks like an ape or a chimp. And I've always heard people say we basically evolved from them, at least until this thread. I see things that look exactly like the ape depicted in the picture in today's world and I of course see humans every day. I've never seen anything in between, and the only answer so far is "hey dumbass...hey idiot, what we evolved from looked exactly like today's ape but it wasn't". Sorry, doesn't sound like a simple clear cut answer and I don't know how anyone can justify the difference between today's ape and the one in the evolution picture.

I don't mind the thought of us evolving at all. I just think it's ridiculous when you talk so arrogantly about science as if it's so easy but you can't easily explain things that, according to you, any idiot should understand, like evolution and global warming.

We wrongly assumed you had a science class in elementary school. No one educated has said that we came from apes, that has been evolution deniers who don't understand it trying to make things up.

The fact is, and this is directly observable, genetic variations occur, that's why you and your siblings are not identical. One may be a little bit taller, one a bit smarter, one a bit faster, blonder, whatever. If that genetic variation helps in survival, that sibling is more likely to reproduce and pass that genetic variation onto the offspring, over millions of generations those desirable variations are propagated while the unhelpful variations are not. There is no direct transition, none of our ancestors just popped out a new species one day, the process has been continuous and incremental. We don't come from monkeys, we share a common ancestor with them.

Yet there's no missing link, nothing walking around today that's half ape/half human or in other words, in the process of evolving. It's like telling everyone what a catastrophe Global Warming is when it's not getting any warmer out...you just look foolish no matter how many times you explain it or how many scientific papers back you up.

The fact that you're expecting a half-ape half-man pretty thoroughly proves you know absolutely nothing about evolution and can't even define it. As such, I won't waste any more time trying to explain elementary school science that's been settled for a century and a half to someone who actively rejects knowledge and science.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, yet smart monkeys, arguably intellectually the most efficient, are proving to be an evolutionary dead end, we are causing the worlds sixth mass extinction event and it will most likely be the end of us as well as millions of other species. We are removing ourselves :lamo

That could be true. But isn't that how it works? Haven't extinct species followed the same path?
 
Who on earth said evolution by itself is the sole theory governing the planet???

Evolution is the theory of how complex creatures arose out of non-complex ones (broadly speaking). It has pretty much nothing to say about anything else.



Then we'd invent something else to fly with. Point is, man has overcome nature in a million and one different aspects. Just because something 'natural' got us to where we are now doesn't mean we have to continue that way. It's 'natural' for man to walk, not sled or ride horses, steam trains and cars. t's natural for man to die in his 30's. Just because we don't wish to apply natural selection to life now doesn't mean we don't acknowledge its existence in nature.

Who said? Well, based on your response, you wouldn't be one of them. That doesn't mean they aren't a loud and vocal group of people. It seems to me, they are the ones who reject anything but pure science as it applies to topics like evolution.

As to flying, if it became critical to survival, man would either sprout wings, or do what ever is necessary to survive. As it is, I happen to agree with you that man would create something that would allow them to fly - as man has done. Those species unable to do so, or even those among the human race, unable to gain access to flight would die off.
 
Back
Top Bottom