Herschel Walker Skeptical Of Evolution: 'Why Are There Still Apes? Think About It' (1 Viewer)

[j brown's body]

"Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker cast doubt on the theory of evolution in recent remarks, saying the fact that apes and humans coexist disproves accepted science.

“At one time, science said man came from apes, did it not? ... If that is true, why are there still apes? Think about it,” Herschel said in an appearance at Sugar Hill Church in Georgia on Sunday.

“Now you’re getting too smart for us, Herschel,” lead pastor Chuck Allen responded.

Walker is currently the front-runner in the GOP contest to challenge Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) in November. He’s a former NFL star who has the endorsement of former President Donald Trump, and he’s outspoken about his Christian faith."

Link

If Walker win, Blackburn, Tuberville and Johnson can add a new voice to the Dummy Caucus.

 

[Questerr]

If you exist, why do you still have parents and cousins?

Seriously, that logic is idiotic.

 

[beefheart]

The bible said we were made of dust...but why is there still dust?

 

[EdwinWillers]

It's a 2017 tweet by Tim Allen.

Where it gets really funny is in the skeptical commentary (often by "scientists" or those who worship scientists) attempting to debunk any skepticism of evolution.

Moral of the story: do not question the faith of evolutionists - they get very anxious when you do.

 

[Questerr]

It's a 2017 tweet by Tim Allen.

Where it gets really funny is in the skeptical commentary (often by "scientists" or those who worship scientists) attempting to debunk any skepticism of evolution.

Moral of the story: do not question the faith of evolutionists - they get very anxious when you do.

What “faith of evolutionists”? Science does not rely on faith.

What is up with theists lying to support their positions? Are y’all’s positions really that weak that you have to lie to defend them?

 

[Hypothetical]

If you exist, why do you still have parents and cousins?

Seriously, that logic is idiotic.

well I'm not so sure... so just to play devil's advocate... if at some point an ape evolved to give birth to something closer to human, then they birthed a child even closer to man, then they became human... why do the intermediate steps not still exist? why do evolutionary lines always seem to cut off so abruptly? why would we NOT find intermediate steps between the 2 species being produced today?

 

[Questerr]

well I'm not so sure... so just to pay devil's advocate... if at some point an ape evolved to give birth to something closer to human, then they birthed a child even closer to man, then they became human... why do the intermediate steps not still exist? why do evolutionary lines always seem to cut off so abruptly? why would we NOT find intermediate steps between the 2 species being produced today?

The intermediate steps do exist. There’s lots of transitional fossils.

 

[Hypothetical]

The intermediate steps do exist. There’s lots of transitional fossils.

and they all just happened to go extinct and stopped being produced.... why?

we have living apes, we have living humans obviously.. where is the living intermediate step?

 

[Questerr]

and they all just happened to go extinct and stopped being produced.... why?

Because other species were better suited to their ecological niche, likely the species that evolved from them.

 

[EdwinWillers]

What “faith of evolutionists”? Science does not rely on faith.

Nonsense - science IS faith, faith in the accuracy of your observations or the observations of others - and faith in how those observations are interpreted.

 

[Hypothetical]

Because other species were better suited to their ecological niche, likely the species that evolved from them.

hhmmm that does not seem to compute when given every single species on the face of the earth and their supposed evolutionary lines. you would think at least SOME would have representative intermediate steps that could still flourish, at least as well as the original species does.

 

[Questerr]

Nonsense - science IS faith, faith in the accuracy of your observations or the observations of others - and faith in how those observations are interpreted.

No faith involved at all. In fact, independent verification and the extensive use of non-subjective methods weeds out any need for faith.

But if you are getting at the problem of hard solipsism, then you are engaging in intellectual wanking.

 

[Questerr]

hhmmm that does not seem to compute when given every single species on the face of the earth and their supposed evolutionary lines. you would think at least SOME would have representative intermediate steps that could still flourish, at least as well as the original species does.

So is the problem that you don’t understand what natural selection is? Because it seems like you are totally ignorant of it.

 

[Warcok]

Ooh, another Klan rally thread! What time is the cross burning?

 

[Jezcoe]

hhmmm that does not seem to compute when given every single species on the face of the earth and their supposed evolutionary lines. you would think at least SOME would have representative intermediate steps that could still flourish, at least as well as the original species does.

We call those common ancestors.

 

[EdwinWillers]

The intermediate steps do exist. There’s lots of transitional fossils.

Transitional fossilized apes? I suppose they could exist.

But if the "evidence" that our predecessors were apes are fossils, do you actually claim to have fossil records of your predecessors? Just wondering where your "parents and cousins" retort fits.

 

[Jezcoe]

well I'm not so sure... so just to play devil's advocate... if at some point an ape evolved to give birth to something closer to human, then they birthed a child even closer to man, then they became human... why do the intermediate steps not still exist? why do evolutionary lines always seem to cut off so abruptly? why would we NOT find intermediate steps between the 2 species being produced today?

Evolution happens to populations... not individuals.

 

[Rawley]

"Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker cast doubt on the theory of evolution in recent remarks, saying the fact that apes and humans coexist disproves accepted science.

“At one time, science said man came from apes, did it not? ... If that is true, why are there still apes? Think about it,” Herschel said in an appearance at Sugar Hill Church in Georgia on Sunday.

“Now you’re getting too smart for us, Herschel,” lead pastor Chuck Allen responded.

Walker is currently the front-runner in the GOP contest to challenge Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) in November. He’s a former NFL star who has the endorsement of former President Donald Trump, and he’s outspoken about his Christian faith."

Link

If Walker win, Blackburn, Tuberville and Johnson can add a new voice to the Dummy Caucus.

Can't have another REpublican black man in the Senate, huh?

 

[NatMorton]

well I'm not so sure... so just to play devil's advocate... if at some point an ape evolved to give birth to something closer to human, then they birthed a child even closer to man, then they became human... why do the intermediate steps not still exist? why do evolutionary lines always seem to cut off so abruptly? why would we NOT find intermediate steps between the 2 species being produced today?

Walker's statements proceeds from a false assertion. We did not evolve "from apes." Modern humans and modern apes do have a common ancestor that was ape-like but was an entirely different species to the apes that exist today.

As for species disappearance, I believe I'm correct in saying that there are far more species of plants and animals that have gone extinct than are alive today. So, statistically speaking, the bigger question isn't where have those species gone, but rather why are we still alive?

 

[Hypothetical]

So is the problem that you don’t understand what natural selection is? Because it seems like you are totally ignorant of it.

is condescension really needed in a discussion where I am questioning the source material? man's ability to learn and discover come from his ability to question the status quo.

I am quite familiar with natural selection, but the again we did not push out the original species we came from with our advanced traits, so how did we push out all the ones between us and them?

 

[Hypothetical]

Walker's statements proceeds from a false assertion. We did not evolve "from apes." Modern humans and modern apes do have a common ancestor that was ape-like but was an entirely different species to the apes that exist today.

As for species disappearance, I believe I'm correct in saying that there are far more species of plants and animals that have gone extinct than are alive today. So, statistically speaking, the bigger question isn't where have those species gone, but rather why are we still alive?

now that is a fair point. perhaps that is the better question.

so you are saying we DID push out our ape like origin species once we took over?

 

[Jezcoe]

Can't have another REpublican black man in the Senate, huh?

We need people who understand reality.

 

[Michael Cole]

Walker is a liar. Evolution doesn't say we came from apes. It says we came from monkeys.



We do! We do come from monkeys!!

 

[Questerr]

is condescension really needed in a discussion where I am questioning the source material? man's ability to learn and discover come from his ability to question the status quo.

I am quite familiar with natural selection, but the again we did not push out the original species we came from with our advanced traits, so how did we push out all the ones between us and them?

Because species that are better evolved for the environment outbreed and out compete species that are less well evolved for that environment.

That’s basic natural selection. If you were “quite familiar”, you’d know that.

 

[EdwinWillers]

No faith involved at all. In fact, independent verification and the extensive use of non-subjective methods weeds out any need for faith.

Of course it's faith - unless you don't understand what faith actually is. Faith is the adherence to the rules and principles of something to which you've come to believe, however such belief came. You are being faithful to your belief in evolution right now, defending it as you are.

But what is that defense? It's nothing more than a regurgitation of evolutionary dogma, or more specifically, "scientific" dogma. Phrases like "independent verification" and "non-subjective methods" are just some of the buzz words of your faith that you've learned - mere pretense that your belief is beyond question because 1) you have others who agree with you (independent verification) and, 2) you employ methodologies not your own (non-subjective).

Moreover, when what you believe in is proven - or demonstrated to be - wrong, as it quite often is, particularly over time, the scientific dogma changes to fit the new criteria and you adopt it and promote it - faithfully - and continue on, settled in your belief.