Evolution of humans solved by Shane Warne

It's been my experience that every on-line forum invariably attracts posters like designated hitter. Even if it were possible to "post" the contents of the Library of Congress and the British Museum, creationists would merely do the la-la-la thing. Whenever they poison a discussion, it's clearly time to move on.

...
Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Designated Hitter said:
Thank you, Ladewig. I was just making it clear that macro-evolution, especially the so-called evolution of man from ape like creature has never been proven, only speculated from so-called fossil evidence.

Most people don't know that because in America evolution is taught in public schools as fact when it isn't fact. It is just another theory.
Click to expand...

NotJustaTheory.com
 
Designated Hitter said:
Thank you, Ladewig. I was just making it clear that macro-evolution, especially the so-called evolution of man from ape like creature has never been proven, only speculated from so-called fossil evidence.

Most people don't know that because in America evolution is taught in public schools as fact when it isn't fact. It is just another theory.
Click to expand...

Most people who receive even partial college education learn to differentiate between technical and colloquial meanings of terms like "theory" and usually learn when to use which.
 
hecd2 said:
Obviously being one of the best leg spinners in the game is a great qualification to understand evolutionary biology. Next up - Viv Richards on General Relativity.
Click to expand...

Nope, he's on evolution's case as well...


Designated Hitter said:
The evolution of man from ape like creatures is one of the most effective lies told in all of history. No proof exists for this, only speculation as wild as that in the OP.
Click to expand...

Designated Hitter
 
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact" . . . In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
Click to expand...
 
hecd2 said:
Is that right? Linky?
Click to expand...

It was a joke. I was pretending that "Designated Hitter" was the chosen handle of Viv Richards. I suppose I ought to hope he isn't because otherwise I would have outed someone's identity which is a no-no, I hear.
 
Designated Hitter said:
Just as I thought. A bunch of deadbeat answers. Just admit it's just a theory and you'll sleep better, I promise. :D
Click to expand...

Be very aware that your last sentence in the quote verifies your very, very light knowledge of science . (period)

You are clearly, by your use of the word Just with theory out of your league and incapable of understanding reality. In all scientific use theory does not mean and never has meant "guess"/"conjecture"/"what I just think". In science, theory means and only means "demonstrably proven to be correct in all available/known situations". Note that a theory, even one that works, can never preclude change or being overturned, but to do so requires not philosophy and nothing near so pathetic as religious belief - it requires hard, clear and unarguable proof. You are free to disbelieve and choose to argue this but no scientist worth anything would pay any attention to you - unless you can prove your ideas to the point science MUST accept it. You are moving far from that situation/possibility.

Note, I have no further use for you, enjoy your time here.
 
Designated Hitter said:
Just admit it's just a theory and you'll sleep better, I promise. :D
Click to expand...

I tried that last night. Lying awake, I repeated to myself, "Evolution is just a theory," and found that it didn't help me go to sleep. Then I tried to remember as many twin-engine aircraft of World War 2 as I could, and I think I drifted off somewhere in the mid-60s. So, so far we have:

Admitting evolution is just a theory - 0
Enumerating irrelevant lists - 1

Since your promise has so far failed to be fulfilled, I'm a little disinclined to trust you further, but I'll give you a second chance. Are there any other short-term personal benefits you can claim to be derived from admitting evolution is just a theory?

Dave
 
That old Chestnut again ey?

If we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys? Check-mate athiests!

I have never understood how such a simple concept as common ancestry fails to be grasped or even known by people who want to give their opinion on vital topics like this.
 
This thread shows much promise, but I'm still waiting for the big kaboom.

Designated Hitter needs to refine his/her "jeer and run" technique if there's going to be any real entertainment value gained.

Edited by Agatha: 
Do not alter usernames to insult
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A comment from Shane Warne on an abysmal reality TV show creating a thread of such beauty?

The world's a wonderful place. Full of idiots entranced by their own importance. And people other than Shane Warne.
 
angrysoba said:
It was a joke. I was pretending that "Designated Hitter" was the chosen handle of Viv Richards. I suppose I ought to hope he isn't because otherwise I would have outed someone's identity which is a no-no, I hear.
Click to expand...
Ah! I think you're safe.
 
I'd like to get the creationist view on neanderthals and denisovans. Were they 'special creations'?
If so, why create a minimum of three types of human to share the same planet, at the same time?
If they weren't 'special creations', does that mean that those of us with neanderthal/ denisovan DNA are less special?
Does this imply that sub-saharan africans are truly God's most favoured people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom