• 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!

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

The article talks about the rarity of fossils. If you want to challenge evolution perhaps you should try something other than 'why is it so hard to find something that is rare?'



Do you do this with other subjects? Do you question the heliocentric model? Do you question the round earth model?
I can see the earth is round and I will need to look up the other thing. I do ask questions to satisfy my curiosity. I detect some animus in your post……you going to be ok?
 
I can see the earth is round and I will need to look up the other thing.

Some say those photos are doctored/fake. In fact, there's an entire organization that believes this.

I do ask questions to satisfy my curiosity. I detect some animus in your post……you going to be ok?

It seems odd to me that being curious automatically leads one to question the established scientific theory?
 
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?
Just as there are multiple species of apes, there were also multiple species of humans. We know of at least a dozen different species of humans (Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo rudolfensis, Homo antecessor, Homo cepranensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodensis, Homo Neanderthals, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, and Denisovans), besides our own, that have gone extinct within the last 4 million years. Homo sapiens (modern humans) are relatively new to the scene, only evolving 180,000 to 200,000 years ago. The last human species to go extinct were the Neanderthals about 10,000 years ago. Although there is DNA evidence that they were "absorbed" within our species through interbreeding.

Conversely, there are a similar number of ape and monkey species that have gone extinct over the same period.
 
Some say those photos are doctored/fake. In fact, there's an entire organization that believes this.



It seems odd to me that being curious automatically leads one to question the established scientific theory?
Being curious doesn't automatically question scientific theory. Being ignorant causes one to question scientific theory. The Greeks knew the Earth was spherical 5,000 years ago because they did the math. Those who do not believe the world is generally round are simply ignorant, which has absolutely nothing to do with curiosity and everything to do with abject stupidity.
 
I can see the earth is round and I will need to look up the other thing. I do ask questions to satisfy my curiosity. I detect some animus in your post……you going to be ok?

“I don’t know what heliocentrism is, but believe I have an educated opinion on whether Evolution is real”
 
and they all just happened to go extinct and stopped being produced.... why?
A lot of them because of the Toba event, which damn near did us in, too.
 
“I don’t know what heliocentrism is, but believe I have an educated opinion on whether Evolution is real”
That word doesn’t show up in my everyday life. I don’t have an issue admitting when I don’t know. Anyone can look shit up and feign knowledge. After looking, I am aware of the meaning of the term.
 
A lot of them because of the Toba event, which damn near did us in, too.
That is just one hypothesis, and not without flaws.

In India they found artifacts both under and above the sediment deposited by the Toba eruption. Which indicates people continued to exist near the region of the eruption, despite the assumed adverse effects. Additionally, sediment in Lake Malawi, several thousand miles from Lake Toba in southeast Africa found heavy amounts of ash from the eruption. If the Lake Malawi area had experienced dramatic cooling, living matter in and near the lake would have died and become included in the layer of mud that contained the ash from the eruption. Yet no organic matter was found.

That calls into question whether the Toba eruption was the event that saw a rapid decline in the human population in Africa. Or perhaps it could have been another explanation, like a large migration of humans out of Africa during the same time period.
 
That word doesn’t show up in my everyday life. I don’t have an issue admitting when I don’t know. Anyone can look shit up and feign knowledge. After looking, I am aware of the meaning of the term.
The battle between science and the church goes way back. Heliocentrism vs geocentrism; sun centered vs earth centered solar system.

It's common knowledge to anyone who has studied science. Nobody is going to look up heliocentrism never having heard of it before.
 
The only thing that has ever disproven science is more science.
Meaning of course - the previous science was, in fact, wrong (or shall we say, "not perfect?")

If evolution or climate change are “disproven” it will be because better scientific models supplant them.
And each time they do, they prove the previous models, or science were in fact wrong.

Again, your usage of “faith” makes the word functionally meaningless. If everything is “faith”, nothing is.
No, it doesn't You just don't understand the actual meaning of either 'faith' or 'belief' and are you confounding both with some sort of anti-supernatural, spiritual bias.

In fact, you yourself provided a perfect example of the difference in this very post!

Being a firm believer in science, you readily acknowledge it has been, and most likely still is - wrong (or shall we say, "not perfect?") although you don't yet know why because for the answer to that you have to wait until further science proves it so - which is a reasonable stance, given the above, that "more science" disproves (or shall we say, "makes more perfect?") "previous science."

Nevertheless, you have planted your feet firmly on your belief in science and will both promote and defend it vigorously. That, my friend, is faith. And it didn't take anything supernatural or spiritual to be so.
Your problem is you're too tuned in to a meaning of faith that is described solely by the latter, by the supernatural - and because you don't believe in anything supernatural or spiritual, you refuse any affiliation whatsoever with it.

In view of the actual definitions of belief and faith, yours is an untenable position.
 
A new poll shows football legend Herschel Walker might be the GOP’s best choice to unseat Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock in the 2022 election.


“Breaking: @trafalgar_group & @InsiderAdv 2022 #GASen #poll (3/7- 3/9) shows Herschel Walker as #GOP’s #1 contender,” said Trafalgar Group head pollster Robert Cahaly on Twitter. “47.7% @HerschelWalker 45.5%, @ReverendWarnock 2.5%, Other 4.3% Und.”



Breaking: @trafalgar_group & @InsiderAdv 2022 #GASen #poll (3/7- 3/9) shows Herschel Walker as #GOP’s #1 contender:

47.7% @HerschelWalker
45.5% @ReverendWarnock
2.5% Other
4.3% Und
 
That word doesn’t show up in my everyday life. I don’t have an issue admitting when I don’t know. Anyone can look shit up and feign knowledge. After looking, I am aware of the meaning of the term.

It's an extremely basic term in science. Someone who passed high school science should know what heliocentrism is.

Someone who doesn't, probably doesn't have an educated opinion worthy of consideration on scientific topics like evolution.
 
Meaning of course - the previous science was, in fact, wrong (or shall we say, "not perfect?")


And each time they do, they prove the previous models, or science were in fact wrong.


No, it doesn't You just don't understand the actual meaning of either 'faith' or 'belief' and are you confounding both with some sort of anti-supernatural, spiritual bias.

In fact, you yourself provided a perfect example of the difference in this very post!

Being a firm believer in science, you readily acknowledge it has been, and most likely still is - wrong (or shall we say, "not perfect?") although you don't yet know why because for the answer to that you have to wait until further science proves it so - which is a reasonable stance, given the above, that "more science" disproves (or shall we say, "makes more perfect?") "previous science."

Nevertheless, you have planted your feet firmly on your belief in science and will both promote and defend it vigorously. That, my friend, is faith. And it didn't take anything supernatural or spiritual to be so.
Your problem is you're too tuned in to a meaning of faith that is described solely by the latter, by the supernatural - and because you don't believe in anything supernatural or spiritual, you refuse any affiliation whatsoever with it.

In view of the actual definitions of belief and faith, yours is an untenable position.

When science disproves previous positions, those positions cease to be science.

How many times has religion dropped its dogma when science proves them wrong?

No faith is required for science. It is based entirely on evidence.
 
A new poll shows football legend Herschel Walker might be the GOP’s best choice to unseat Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock in the 2022 election.


“Breaking: @trafalgar_group & @InsiderAdv 2022 #GASen #poll (3/7- 3/9) shows Herschel Walker as #GOP’s #1 contender,” said Trafalgar Group head pollster Robert Cahaly on Twitter. “47.7% @HerschelWalker 45.5%, @ReverendWarnock 2.5%, Other 4.3% Und.”
It's Science that explains the natural world around us and not belief in god/gods. On one hand you have genetics, microbiology, archaeology, paleontology etc. The tangible and the testable. And the other hand you have "God did it" Children aren't going to become future geneticists if their learning material is littered with "Kent Hovind and Kirk Cameron Adam and Eve had pet dinosaurs nonsense"
 
Well.... that's convenient. LOL

Gonna go out on a limb here - lemme guess, you majored in Rote?

Its literally how science works. Science is a tentative position based only on the best current evidence and models. When new better evidence and models appear, the old ones are cast aside and are no longer part of science.

I took enough English classes to know your definition of "faith" is both false and totally useless. If you have evidence, you don't need faith. Faith is belief without evidence.
 
Evolution is a theory, not reality.
This is about as dumb as the Herschel Walker argument of "Then why are there still monkeys?"

Look up scientific theory.

It does mean what you think it means.

Evolution is reality. The "Theory of Evolution" explains the scientific principles of that reality.
 
Anti-evolutionists are some of the most annoying of the anti-science crowd. Like talking to children. Like the teenager who thinks he knows more than his parents. Pretty astonishing. It takes a conspiratorial mind to be an anti-evolutionist.
Kind of like an anti vaxer or an election truther. The same kind of person who believe the lies of a man like Trump.
 
Its literally how science works. Science is a tentative position based only on the best current evidence and models. When new better evidence and models appear, the old ones are cast aside and are no longer part of science.
That’s not quote true. We know Newton’s law of gravitation is wrong, we know Boyle’s law of gasses is wrong. But they’re still science, and still useful and used.

But I think an appropriate response to Edwinwillers would be to quote Isaac Asimov: “when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
 
Being curious doesn't automatically question scientific theory. Being ignorant causes one to question scientific theory. The Greeks knew the Earth was spherical 5,000 years ago because they did the math. Those who do not believe the world is generally round are simply ignorant, which has absolutely nothing to do with curiosity and everything to do with abject stupidity.

Well for once you and I agree, Glitch.
 
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?
Because they merge.
 
Back
Top Bottom