• 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'

Hypothetical said:
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?
Click to expand...
R.418cc25aa83e850d5da05e61e5dfdd12

Archaeopteryx

Here's an explanation:

First, it is important to realize that the definition of “transitional fossil” is totally arbitrary. Any species that does not go extinct is an intermediate. In other words, evolution generally does not reach “end points” (living fossils being one debatable exception). To put this another way, we tend to think of the species that are alive today as the final products of evolution, but they aren’t. If we could go forward several million years into the future, we would see very few of today’s species but we would see plenty of their descendants. So everything is an intermediate between the previous generations and the future generations. Nevertheless, I understand creationists’ point that we should see obvious transitions between major groups, so I’ll focus this post on them.

thelogicofscience.com

“If evolution is true where are the missing links?”

This is one of the most common arguments that I hear from creationists. The claim is that if evolution is true, then in the fossil record we should see lots of intermediate species. In other words,…
thelogicofscience.com thelogicofscience.com
 
EdwinWillers said:
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.
Click to expand...
If it is indeed an article of faith then there are other "faiths" that would answer the same questions.

So if that is true the next thing should be very easy.

Without using Evolutionary Theory, please explain the existence of Human Chromosome 2.
 
EdwinWillers said:
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.
Click to expand...

No it isn’t. Faith is belief in something without verifiable supporting evidence. If you have verifiable evidence, there is no need for faith.

What scientific “dogma” has been “proven to be wrong”?

You realize evolution is a fact right? It’s been observed. The principles behind it are used for everything from finding oil deposits to modeling new aircraft designs and those principles produce usable results.
 
Something I read back when it was posted in '03:

You Are an Ape

To any anti-evolutionist, after reading that, please explain it using religion.
 
If I came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?
 
Jezcoe said:
It is a framework that describes reality.

Lazy thinking like "Why are there still apes" is a complete disqualifier for living in 2022.
Click to expand...
Science is the process of asking asking questions.

Have you heard Mr. Walker speak? He's a very intelligent and passionate and religious. To call for him to be "disqualified" for asking questions says more about you than is does about him.
 
Rawley said:
Science is the process of asking asking questions.

Have you heard Mr. Walker speak? He's a very intelligent and passionate and religious. To call for him to be "disqualified" for asking questions says more about you than is does about him.
Click to expand...
"Why are there still apes" is the the definition of Lazy thinking.

It doesn't even make any logical sense.

It shows a complete lack of curiosity about the nature of reality.

It is disqualifying.
 
Jezcoe said:
If it is indeed an article of faith then there are other "faiths" that would answer the same questions.

So if that is true the next thing should be very easy.

Without using Evolutionary Theory, please explain the existence of Human Chromosome 2.
Click to expand...
Explain the existence and workings of the human eye - without millions and millions of years as part of your answer.
 
Questerr said:
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the model explaining common ancestry for species on the Earth.

And scientific theories are the best explanations of reality available.
Click to expand...
f=ma is reality. Evolution is a theory
 
Jezcoe said:
"Why are there still apes" is the the definition of Lazy thinking.

It doesn't even make any logical sense.

It shows a complete lack of curiosity about the nature of reality.

It is disqualifying.
Click to expand...
a lazy black man. Dancing rather close to that racist line.
 
j brown's body said:
"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.
Click to expand...
There are, have you seen Marge and Boebert lately?

The dumb that comes from republicans is astounding, and they want to claiem both sides or pretend they are superior. They are moronic idiots many of them, and that is how shitty people like Hershel pander to
 
Rawley said:
f=ma is reality. Evolution is a theory
Click to expand...

No, Evolution (that is, the change in allele frequencies over time resulting in speciation) is an observed fact. It happens. We know it happens and there are several recorded examples of it.

Do you think Scientific Theories are “guesses”?
 
EdwinWillers said:
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.
Click to expand...
LOL, the moronic trolling just never ends, and is so pathetic. There is no faith in the plethora of facts from all disciplines of science that have fully supported evolution

EdwinWillers said:
Nonsense - science IS faith, faith in the accuracy of your observations or the observations of others - and faith in how those observations are interpreted.
Click to expand...

More dumb, lame nonsense. Nobody just takes the word of one scientist and leaves it as that, other people check and recheck the world and continue to add to the information.

Also, we know science work, because the computer I type on, teh wifi sending signals, electricity, the medicine that has kept many people alive, the improvements in agricultures, the TV we watch, satellites in space, every bit of technology we have is based on scientific discoveries, and the fact all those technologies work proves science is real.
 
Hypothetical said:
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?
Click to expand...
Every species that ever existed has not been discovered. The formation of fossils are very rare and require special conditions to preserve them. We have also not dug up the entire planet to find them all. This is just stupid nonsense trying to discredit evolution and displays an ignorance of the topic
 
Hypothetical said:
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?
Click to expand...
The apes that are living now are not the same ape species that we evolved from. Evolution takes a long time. But we can see those steps in other species. Look at bugs and other insects, and you can see evolutionary relatives living together. More advanced life will evolve more slowly and therefore be less likely to live with close "relatives". However, we did live with Neanderthals, which likely evolved from the same earlier humanoid species that we did.
 
People have been searching for the “missing link” since forever……
 
Questerr said:
No it isn’t. Faith is belief in something without verifiable supporting evidence. If you have verifiable evidence, there is no need for faith.

What scientific “dogma” has been “proven to be wrong”?

You realize evolution is a fact right? It’s been observed. The principles behind it are used for everything from finding oil deposits to modeling new aircraft designs and those principles produce usable results.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, my friend. It's the supporting evidence that makes faith in a particular belief possible. Without supporting evidence, we do little but give lip service to the things we believe; we certainly won't promote or defend them.

You believe in evolution. It's the "supporting evidence" that enables your faith in it to promote and defend it.

What dogmas have been proven wrong? Well heck, the most glaring and obvious one perhaps is Copernican theory, the heliocentric model of the universe. Climate scientists have been altering their theories since the 60's. Whenever science "observes" something contrary to current dogma (and there's "independent verification" and etc.), they change, or alter their theory to be more in line with current, or latest observations. Don't tell me you disagree that science makes mistakes.

I just demonstrated that observation is not necessarily fact.

Take eyewitness testimony - for ages the testimony of eyewitnesses was assumed to be the most credible of all "proof" for or against a defendant. Until recently that is, as we learn the psychology of eyewitnesses can introduce anomalies in their testimony, making what they observed less credible than we once might have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom