[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ Fact in point: Varq posting a link to man’s purported evolution from ape-like primates and labeling it as “truth.” Not a hypothesis derived from “curiosity driven truth waiting to be found,” just “truth.”
This was a statement based on good ol’ fashioned fairh.[/quote]
A theory, not a hypothesis. There actually is a difference.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ Fact in point: Varq posting a link to man’s purported evolution from ape-like primates and labeling it as “truth.” Not a hypothesis derived from “curiosity driven truth waiting to be found,” just “truth.”
This was a statement based on good ol’ fashioned fairh.[/quote]
A theory, not a hypothesis. There actually is a difference.[/quote]
Commonly called a theory, of course, but we all know, don’t we, that a theory must be testable?[/quote]
The truth is out there, Push. You may find it someday. In the meantime, since I can’t very well pray for you, I’ll think for you. 
And I’ll let my friend Aron have the last word from me on the matter in this thread.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I am sure that truth is out there, waiting to be found. That’s curiosity.
You are sure that truth has already been found and is in your possession. That’s faith.[/quote]
God, you’ve got a keen intellect.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ Fact in point: Varq posting a link to man’s purported evolution from ape-like primates and labeling it as “truth.” Not a hypothesis derived from “curiosity driven truth waiting to be found,” just “truth.”
This was a statement based on good ol’ fashioned fairh.[/quote]
Modern Homo sapiens are apes, as are every species of the genus Homo. We have ample fossil evidence of Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis, all of which are undoubtedly more “human” like than “ape” like. Do you deny that human species other than our own have existed?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
How about we just get better at the technique. I mean we’ll end up full on Huxley, but shit… We’ve got 1984, why not?
[/quote]
Here is a chilling fact, if you consider an embryo equivalent to a fully-developed infant. The way we have recently got better at the technique is not to reduce the number of embryos produced, but to increase them, and select only the genetically strongest candidates for implantation, based on the amount of mitochondrial DNA in the embryonic nuclei.
Yes, this is eugenics. The only difference between doing this and doing what the Spartans did is that we don’t have to wait a full forty weeks before chucking the weaklings off the cliff.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ Fact in point: Varq posting a link to man’s purported evolution from ape-like primates and labeling it as “truth.” Not a hypothesis derived from “curiosity driven truth waiting to be found,” just “truth.”
This was a statement based on good ol’ fashioned fairh.[/quote]
Modern Homo sapiens are apes, as are every species of the genus Homo. We have ample fossil evidence of Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis, all of which are undoubtedly more “human” like than “ape” like. Do you deny that human species other than our own have existed? [/quote]
Gentlemen, please.
Let us start another thread, if we must continue this topic. Goodness knows these forums could use another good natural selection vs intelligent design thread.
And the answer to your question, Bismarck, is yes. Yes, he does.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ Fact in point: Varq posting a link to man’s purported evolution from ape-like primates and labeling it as “truth.” Not a hypothesis derived from “curiosity driven truth waiting to be found,” just “truth.”
This was a statement based on good ol’ fashioned fairh.[/quote]
Modern Homo sapiens are apes, as are every species of the genus Homo. We have ample fossil evidence of Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis, all of which are undoubtedly more “human” like than “ape” like. Do you deny that human species other than our own have existed? [/quote]
I swear by Odin, one of the many gods, that christian arguments that science is just as much about faith as christianity are pure balderdash. How did this thread turn into people denying evolution. Anyone who believes in intelligent design lacks the former. Mind boggling.
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
I swear by Odin, one of the many gods, that christian arguments that science is just as much about faith as christianity are pure balderdash. How did this thread turn into people denying evolution. Anyone who believes in intelligent design lacks the former. Mind boggling.
So, in order to keep this thread on topic are you ever going to respond to the criticisms that have been leveled at your generalizations?
Dawkins is such a smug, smarmy, arrogant little non-entity. Paired with Bill Maher, applauding themselves, building a strawman about why don’t monkeys evolve in front of us at the zoo - it’s literally stomach churning. And these creeps like Dawkins are always the first to come out with morally deviant positions on things like child molestation(harmless touching as Dawkins calls it) or late term abortion on demand, “encouraging” the elderly to submit to euthanasia - and why not? Ethics are fluid and subjective and what does anything matter anyway to a nihilist?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
How about we just get better at the technique. I mean we’ll end up full on Huxley, but shit… We’ve got 1984, why not?
[/quote]
Here is a chilling fact, if you consider an embryo equivalent to a fully-developed infant. The way we have recently got better at the technique is not to reduce the number of embryos produced, but to increase them, and select only the genetically strongest candidates for implantation, based on the amount of mitochondrial DNA in the embryonic nuclei.
Yes, this is eugenics. The only difference between doing this and doing what the Spartans did is that we don’t have to wait a full forty weeks before chucking the weaklings off the cliff.[/quote]
Would you consider eugenics to be “intelligent design”?
To put things in perspective this is the type of shit that makes us science haters want abortion to be illegal.
[quote]pabergin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
How about we just get better at the technique. I mean we’ll end up full on Huxley, but shit… We’ve got 1984, why not?
[/quote]
Here is a chilling fact, if you consider an embryo equivalent to a fully-developed infant. The way we have recently got better at the technique is not to reduce the number of embryos produced, but to increase them, and select only the genetically strongest candidates for implantation, based on the amount of mitochondrial DNA in the embryonic nuclei.
Yes, this is eugenics. The only difference between doing this and doing what the Spartans did is that we don’t have to wait a full forty weeks before chucking the weaklings off the cliff.[/quote]
Would you consider eugenics to be “intelligent design”? [/quote]
Nope. Unnatural selection.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
To put things in perspective this is the type of shit that makes us science haters want abortion to be illegal. [/quote]
The word “science” comes from the Latin word for “knowledge”.
Why would you hate knowledge?
