If evolution is not a theory why did:

Okay, back to the thread topic again, so why did we lose the hair that we needed to keep warm, keep dry?
Omg do you have Google? I looked up the answer in 3 seconds. If you have a problem with sciences explanation then tell us what you have a problem with and why.
sheesh, you are one hyper soul! ;)

here's what I found in scientificamerican.com...

looks like NO ONE KNOWS why it happened yet, just a bunch of speculations or hypothesis, no theories.

sooo, what is your best scientific guess on why we became naked, without fur?


Scientists have suggested three main explanations for why humans lack fur. All revolve around the idea that it may have been advantageous for our evolving lineage to have become less and less hairy during the six million years since we shared a common ancestor with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee.

The aquatic-ape hypothesis suggests that six million to eight million years ago apelike ancestors of modern humans had a semiaquatic lifestyle based on foraging for food in shallow waters. Fur is not an effective insulator in water, and so the theory asserts that we evolved to lose our fur, replacing it, as other aquatic mammals have, with relatively high levels of body fat. Imaginative as this explanation is—and helpful in providing us with an excuse for being overweight—paleontological evidence for an aquatic phase of human existence has proven elusive.

The second theory is that we lost our fur in order to control our body temperature when we adapted to life on the hot savannah. Our ape ancestors spent most of their time in cool forests, but a furry, upright hominid walking around in the sun would have overheated. The body-cooling idea seems sensible, but even though lacking fur might have made it easier for us to lose heat during the day, we also would have lost more heat at night, when we needed to retain it.

Recently, a colleague and I suggested that ancestors to modern humans became naked as a means to reduce the prevalence of external parasites that routinely infest fur. A furry coat provides an attractive and safe haven for insects such as ticks, lice, biting flies and other "ectoparasites." These creatures not only bring irritation and annoyance but carry viral, bacterial and protozoan-based diseases such as malaria, sleeping sickness, West Nile and Lyme disease, all of which can cause chronic medical problems and, in some cases, death. Humans, by virtue of being able to build fires, construct shelters and produce clothes, would have been able to lose their fur and thereby reduce the numbers of parasites they were carrying without suffering from the cold at night or in colder climates.


What is the latest theory of why humans lost their body hair? Why are we the only hairless primate?
 
Okay, back to the thread topic again, so why did we lose the hair that we needed to keep warm, keep dry?
Omg do you have Google? I looked up the answer in 3 seconds. If you have a problem with sciences explanation then tell us what you have a problem with and why.
sheesh, you are one hyper soul! ;)

here's what I found in scientificamerican.com...

looks like NO ONE KNOWS why it happened yet, just a bunch of speculations or hypothesis, no theories.

sooo, what is your best scientific guess on why we became naked, without fur?


Scientists have suggested three main explanations for why humans lack fur. All revolve around the idea that it may have been advantageous for our evolving lineage to have become less and less hairy during the six million years since we shared a common ancestor with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee.

The aquatic-ape hypothesis suggests that six million to eight million years ago apelike ancestors of modern humans had a semiaquatic lifestyle based on foraging for food in shallow waters. Fur is not an effective insulator in water, and so the theory asserts that we evolved to lose our fur, replacing it, as other aquatic mammals have, with relatively high levels of body fat. Imaginative as this explanation is—and helpful in providing us with an excuse for being overweight—paleontological evidence for an aquatic phase of human existence has proven elusive.

The second theory is that we lost our fur in order to control our body temperature when we adapted to life on the hot savannah. Our ape ancestors spent most of their time in cool forests, but a furry, upright hominid walking around in the sun would have overheated. The body-cooling idea seems sensible, but even though lacking fur might have made it easier for us to lose heat during the day, we also would have lost more heat at night, when we needed to retain it.

Recently, a colleague and I suggested that ancestors to modern humans became naked as a means to reduce the prevalence of external parasites that routinely infest fur. A furry coat provides an attractive and safe haven for insects such as ticks, lice, biting flies and other "ectoparasites." These creatures not only bring irritation and annoyance but carry viral, bacterial and protozoan-based diseases such as malaria, sleeping sickness, West Nile and Lyme disease, all of which can cause chronic medical problems and, in some cases, death. Humans, by virtue of being able to build fires, construct shelters and produce clothes, would have been able to lose their fur and thereby reduce the numbers of parasites they were carrying without suffering from the cold at night or in colder climates.


What is the latest theory of why humans lost their body hair? Why are we the only hairless primate?
Exact article I found. Both theories sound plausable. We may have to settle on scientific consensus which has often been proven wrong. Science is OK with that.
 
I think we lost our hair because its just not sexy. Guys bang girls with less hair not more and that hairless gene lives on. Plus we shave so our DNA is altered when we kill face armpit chest and leg hair. Not to mention the private areas.
 
I thought Evolution was a scientific theory

God or Gods is dependent on definition
I believe God is love. I believe in God because I can't believe all this happened by random chance. I believe in God because he visited our ancestors and told them things 2000 years ago. God is a fact! I believe in God because he speaks to me.

None of these statements would be accepted by science.

I am a Western Atheist, but I can't argue with the existence of love!:eusa_dance:
 
By the way

Some proofs/disproofs cannot use the physical science.

Also, Science is not the be all and end all to every truth.

In other words, there are abstract concepts that can not be proved with physical experiments, but we do know these things exist through our experiences. . Maybe when psychology develops some more, maybe then. Maybe

And by the way--I trust no one associated with the ICR. Their goal is not to prove creationism is a valid science. Their goal is to prove that the Bible is the unerrant word of God.

They even have an illogical reason on why they attack evolution. They think if they debunk evolution, then creationism becomes valid automatically. Hate to burst their bubble, but science will create another theory that covers the fault and will not utilize GOD because using God in a theory is a closed theory. No research, no production, nothing to study without going to God and hoping God gives you the correct answers.

Yes, they will misrepresent, misinterpret and mishandle information on purpose to lead people "astray", which is a strange thing to say about people who wish to lead people to "God".

So, yes
ICR is something to laugh at since their lack of integrity is a serious joke. There is no need to debunk an article from ICR, like there is no need to debunk an article from the Onion.
 
Okay, back to the thread topic again, so why did we lose the hair that we needed to keep warm, keep dry?

People in the warmer regions didn't need hair as keeping warm wasn't a problem, and those in the colder regions invented 'clothes'.
 
By the way

Some proofs/disproofs cannot use the physical science.

Also, Science is not the be all and end all to every truth.

In other words, there are abstract concepts that can not be proved with physical experiments, but we do know these things exist through our experiences. . Maybe when psychology develops some more, maybe then. Maybe

And by the way--I trust no one associated with the ICR. Their goal is not to prove creationism is a valid science. Their goal is to prove that the Bible is the unerrant word of God.

They even have an illogical reason on why they attack evolution. They think if they debunk evolution, then creationism becomes valid automatically. Hate to burst their bubble, but science will create another theory that covers the fault and will not utilize GOD because using God in a theory is a closed theory. No research, no production, nothing to study without going to God and hoping God gives you the correct answers.

Yes, they will misrepresent, misinterpret and mishandle information on purpose to lead people "astray", which is a strange thing to say about people who wish to lead people to "God".

So, yes
ICR is something to laugh at since their lack of integrity is a serious joke. There is no need to debunk an article from ICR, like there is no need to debunk an article from the Onion.

I see it a little differently. I do agree there are things we can't physically prove that we know exist. Dark Matter is a good example. Physics doesn't prove it, math does. We can't directly observe or measure Dark Matter... so how do we know it exists? Mathematics proves it exists because it can calculate the gravity it has. We know it's there even though it doesn't "physically" appear to be there.

On sources like ICR... I don't automatically accept that if ICR said it, must be valid. But then, I don't accept anything at face value. You will recall a few years back, the National Enquirer broke the story of John Edwards affair. Normally, you would dismiss something reported by the Enquirer as "tabloid gossip" but in this case, they nailed it. By the same token, we are lied to and misled by editorial writers and journalists from mainstream sources daily. Anyone who tells you anything is subject to be misleading you and misinforming. Anyone can have an ulterior motive or agenda. You're crazy if you don't think Atheist and secular scientists don't have an agenda.

The article I posted earlier was specifically to address an argument made about chromosome fusion. The article points out the work of credible scientists in the field and their findings. I can't help the source was someone you don't favor. It doesn't invalidate the science. This isn't the opinion of ICR, they certainly have an agenda but it still doesn't negate the science. If ICR were to post an article about scientific research into dark matter, does that make dark matter automatically invalid? What if they post an article about gravity... does gravity not exist anymore because ICR said it did?
 
I thought Evolution was a scientific theory

More like a pseudo-intellectual fad than science. Xian bashers have been dreaming up stuff to replace what is essentially a philosophy for several centuries now, but have failed to come up with anything rational that does so effectively. That's because 'rationalism' is pretty much inadequate and it's impossible to be 'rational' in any meaningful sense, unless you happen to be the one individual in the entire history of the planet who knows absolutely everything and therefore have the means and info to make completely 'rational' decisions.

God or Gods is dependent on definition

Apples and oranges, really; religion has a different premise than mere empiricism; it just depends on what one is trying to explain or achieve. For instance, Thomas of Aquina's 'Five Proofs' is an attempt at 'rationalism', and as you said 'God' is dependent on definition.

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The existence of God (Prima Pars, Q. 2)

Aldous Huxley, whom iirc coined the term 'agnostic'


“You know the formula: m over nought equals infinity, m being any positive number? Well, why not reduce the equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by nought? In which case you have m equals infinity times nought. That is to say that a positive number is the product of zero and infinity. Doesn't that demonstrate the creation of the universe by an infinite power out of nothing? Doesn't it?” Aldous Huxley, Point Counter Point (Urbana-Champaign: Dalkey Archive Press, 2001), 135.

When one uses defined words, or mathematics for that matter, one finds that all logic is merely circular reasoning, and not really useful for much outside of empiricism, and math, since those need to be both consistent and repeatable, while theology only needs to be internally consistent with itself; Christianity is the highest evolution of that concept, and Hegel, an atheist and a great admirer of Christianity as well, discusses at length in some of his works.

Those who buy into the 'evolution' fantasy are just being irrational and in some cases, as we see here in this thread, insane; probably sociopaths.
 
Last edited:
By the way

Some proofs/disproofs cannot use the physical science.

Also, Science is not the be all and end all to every truth.

In other words, there are abstract concepts that can not be proved with physical experiments, but we do know these things exist through our experiences. . Maybe when psychology develops some more, maybe then. Maybe

And by the way--I trust no one associated with the ICR. Their goal is not to prove creationism is a valid science. Their goal is to prove that the Bible is the unerrant word of God.

They even have an illogical reason on why they attack evolution. They think if they debunk evolution, then creationism becomes valid automatically. Hate to burst their bubble, but science will create another theory that covers the fault and will not utilize GOD because using God in a theory is a closed theory. No research, no production, nothing to study without going to God and hoping God gives you the correct answers.

Yes, they will misrepresent, misinterpret and mishandle information on purpose to lead people "astray", which is a strange thing to say about people who wish to lead people to "God".

So, yes
ICR is something to laugh at since their lack of integrity is a serious joke. There is no need to debunk an article from ICR, like there is no need to debunk an article from the Onion.

I see it a little differently. I do agree there are things we can't physically prove that we know exist. Dark Matter is a good example. Physics doesn't prove it, math does. We can't directly observe or measure Dark Matter... so how do we know it exists? Mathematics proves it exists because it can calculate the gravity it has. We know it's there even though it doesn't "physically" appear to be there.

On sources like ICR... I don't automatically accept that if ICR said it, must be valid. But then, I don't accept anything at face value. You will recall a few years back, the National Enquirer broke the story of John Edwards affair. Normally, you would dismiss something reported by the Enquirer as "tabloid gossip" but in this case, they nailed it. By the same token, we are lied to and misled by editorial writers and journalists from mainstream sources daily. Anyone who tells you anything is subject to be misleading you and misinforming. Anyone can have an ulterior motive or agenda. You're crazy if you don't think Atheist and secular scientists don't have an agenda.

The article I posted earlier was specifically to address an argument made about chromosome fusion. The article points out the work of credible scientists in the field and their findings. I can't help the source was someone you don't favor. It doesn't invalidate the science. This isn't the opinion of ICR, they certainly have an agenda but it still doesn't negate the science. If ICR were to post an article about scientific research into dark matter, does that make dark matter automatically invalid? What if they post an article about gravity... does gravity not exist anymore because ICR said it did?

Do not know Dr. Tomkins
However, I am familiar with the work of ICR.

A little search on the web and it is demonstrated Mr. Tomkins argument does not disprove evolution because he misrepresents what evolution predicts. The research demonstrates what evolution predicts!!

Sorry if you got suckered by another ICR hit job. But that is what they do. OH--it is not like they made a mistake either. It was intentional!
 
Okay, back to the thread topic again, so why did we lose the hair that we needed to keep warm, keep dry?

People in the warmer regions didn't need hair as keeping warm wasn't a problem, and those in the colder regions invented 'clothes'.
other primates were in the same warmer region and did not lose their hair...?

plus it was still cold at night even in areas with hot daytime temps and hair was still needed to keep warm at night...?

It just seems like it would had to have been something very major with our environment, or whatever, that lasted a real long time for this change to take place, and extremely beneficial for us to turn naked.
 
Last edited:
I think we lost our hair because its just not sexy.

I don't find excessive body hair sexy but I have to disagree this is anywhere near universal. There is a whole entire "cottage industry" devoted to hirsute fetishes. How do you explain that away? How many women just love a man with a hairy chest? Again, male or female, people are different on what they find sexy. If sexual appeal were the driver, we's see some humans who still looked like monkey people. Granted, there are some very hairy people but we understand it is because of a very strong gene that is inherited.
 
I thought Evolution was a scientific theory

More like a pseudo-intellectual fad than science. Xian bashers have been dreaming up stuff to replace what is essentially a philosophy for several centuries now, but have failed to come up with anything rational that does so effectively. That's because 'rationalism' is pretty much inadequate and it's impossible to be 'rational' in any meaningful sense, unless you happen to be the one individual in the entire history of the planet who knows absolutely everything and therefore have the means and info to make completely 'rational' decisions.

God or Gods is dependent on definition

Apples and oranges, really; religion has a different premise than mere empiricism; it just depends on what one is trying to explain or achieve. For instance, Thomas of Aquina's 'Five Proofs' is an attempt at 'rationalism', and as you said 'God' is dependent on definition.

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The existence of God (Prima Pars, Q. 2)

Aldous Huxley, whom iirc coined the term 'agnostic'


“You know the formula: m over nought equals infinity, m being any positive number? Well, why not reduce the equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by nought? In which case you have m equals infinity times nought. That is to say that a positive number is the product of zero and infinity. Doesn't that demonstrate the creation of the universe by an infinite power out of nothing? Doesn't it?” Aldous Huxley, Point Counter Point (Urbana-Champaign: Dalkey Archive Press, 2001), 135.

When one uses defined words, or mathematics for that matter, one finds that all logic is merely circular reasoning, and not really useful for much outside of empiricism, and math, since those need to be both consistent and repeatable, while theology only needs to be internally consistent with itself; Christianity is the highest evolution of that concept, and Hegel, an atheist and a great admirer of Christianity as well, discusses at length in some of his works.

Those who buy into the 'evolution' fantasy are just being irrational and in some cases, as we see here in this thread, insane; probably sociopaths.

I am assuming m is positive, obviously infinity is positive

However, zero in not positive
(zero is not negative either, but that is beside the point)

So how is it that a positive number, divided by a number that is not positive, returns a positive number?

The mathematical equation (m/0= infinity) is false
m/0 is undefined!
 
Okay, back to the thread topic again, so why did we lose the hair that we needed to keep warm, keep dry?

People in the warmer regions didn't need hair as keeping warm wasn't a problem, and those in the colder regions invented 'clothes'.
other primates were in the same warmer region and did not lose their hair...?

plus it was still cold at night even in areas with hot daytime temps and hair was still needed to keep warm at night...?

It just seems like it would had to have been something very major with our environment, or whatever, that lasted a real long time for this change to take place, and extremely beneficial for us to turn naked.

Any number of possibilities. If one is to buy the 'out of Africa' argument, then how does one account for the differences in ethnicity and things like lots of body hair versus little or no body hair? Modern humans haven't been around nearly long enough for that kind of variety.
 
I thought Evolution was a scientific theory

More like a pseudo-intellectual fad than science. Xian bashers have been dreaming up stuff to replace what is essentially a philosophy for several centuries now, but have failed to come up with anything rational that does so effectively. That's because 'rationalism' is pretty much inadequate and it's impossible to be 'rational' in any meaningful sense, unless you happen to be the one individual in the entire history of the planet who knows absolutely everything and therefore have the means and info to make completely 'rational' decisions.

God or Gods is dependent on definition

Apples and oranges, really; religion has a different premise than mere empiricism; it just depends on what one is trying to explain or achieve. For instance, Thomas of Aquina's 'Five Proofs' is an attempt at 'rationalism', and as you said 'God' is dependent on definition.

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The existence of God (Prima Pars, Q. 2)

Aldous Huxley, whom iirc coined the term 'agnostic'


“You know the formula: m over nought equals infinity, m being any positive number? Well, why not reduce the equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by nought? In which case you have m equals infinity times nought. That is to say that a positive number is the product of zero and infinity. Doesn't that demonstrate the creation of the universe by an infinite power out of nothing? Doesn't it?” Aldous Huxley, Point Counter Point (Urbana-Champaign: Dalkey Archive Press, 2001), 135.

When one uses defined words, or mathematics for that matter, one finds that all logic is merely circular reasoning, and not really useful for much outside of empiricism, and math, since those need to be both consistent and repeatable, while theology only needs to be internally consistent with itself; Christianity is the highest evolution of that concept, and Hegel, an atheist and a great admirer of Christianity as well, discusses at length in some of his works.

Those who buy into the 'evolution' fantasy are just being irrational and in some cases, as we see here in this thread, insane; probably sociopaths.

I am assuming m is positive, obviously infinity is positive

However, zero in not positive
(zero is not negative either, but that is beside the point)

So how is it that a positive number, divided by a number that is not positive, returns a positive number?

The mathematical equation (m/0= infinity) is false
m/0 is undefined!

Take it up with Huxley. You've missed the point he was making.
 
I thought Evolution was a scientific theory

More like a pseudo-intellectual fad than science. Xian bashers have been dreaming up stuff to replace what is essentially a philosophy for several centuries now, but have failed to come up with anything rational that does so effectively. That's because 'rationalism' is pretty much inadequate and it's impossible to be 'rational' in any meaningful sense, unless you happen to be the one individual in the entire history of the planet who knows absolutely everything and therefore have the means and info to make completely 'rational' decisions.

God or Gods is dependent on definition

Apples and oranges, really; religion has a different premise than mere empiricism; it just depends on what one is trying to explain or achieve. For instance, Thomas of Aquina's 'Five Proofs' is an attempt at 'rationalism', and as you said 'God' is dependent on definition.

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The existence of God (Prima Pars, Q. 2)

Aldous Huxley, whom iirc coined the term 'agnostic'


“You know the formula: m over nought equals infinity, m being any positive number? Well, why not reduce the equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by nought? In which case you have m equals infinity times nought. That is to say that a positive number is the product of zero and infinity. Doesn't that demonstrate the creation of the universe by an infinite power out of nothing? Doesn't it?” Aldous Huxley, Point Counter Point (Urbana-Champaign: Dalkey Archive Press, 2001), 135.

When one uses defined words, or mathematics for that matter, one finds that all logic is merely circular reasoning, and not really useful for much outside of empiricism, and math, since those need to be both consistent and repeatable, while theology only needs to be internally consistent with itself; Christianity is the highest evolution of that concept, and Hegel, an atheist and a great admirer of Christianity as well, discusses at length in some of his works.

Those who buy into the 'evolution' fantasy are just being irrational and in some cases, as we see here in this thread, insane; probably sociopaths.

I am assuming m is positive, obviously infinity is positive

However, zero in not positive
(zero is not negative either, but that is beside the point)

So how is it that a positive number, divided by a number that is not positive, returns a positive number?

The mathematical equation (m/0= infinity) is false
m/0 is undefined!

Take it up with Huxley. You've missed the point he was making.

The point he was trying to make hinged on a false statement and an analogy of that statement. So how should I consider his point?

P.S. His analogy of the statement is wrong as well. So I can't say he is correct/incorrect from what he has given me!!
 
By the way

Some proofs/disproofs cannot use the physical science.

Also, Science is not the be all and end all to every truth.

In other words, there are abstract concepts that can not be proved with physical experiments, but we do know these things exist through our experiences. . Maybe when psychology develops some more, maybe then. Maybe

And by the way--I trust no one associated with the ICR. Their goal is not to prove creationism is a valid science. Their goal is to prove that the Bible is the unerrant word of God.

They even have an illogical reason on why they attack evolution. They think if they debunk evolution, then creationism becomes valid automatically. Hate to burst their bubble, but science will create another theory that covers the fault and will not utilize GOD because using God in a theory is a closed theory. No research, no production, nothing to study without going to God and hoping God gives you the correct answers.

Yes, they will misrepresent, misinterpret and mishandle information on purpose to lead people "astray", which is a strange thing to say about people who wish to lead people to "God".

So, yes
ICR is something to laugh at since their lack of integrity is a serious joke. There is no need to debunk an article from ICR, like there is no need to debunk an article from the Onion.

I see it a little differently. I do agree there are things we can't physically prove that we know exist. Dark Matter is a good example. Physics doesn't prove it, math does. We can't directly observe or measure Dark Matter... so how do we know it exists? Mathematics proves it exists because it can calculate the gravity it has. We know it's there even though it doesn't "physically" appear to be there.

On sources like ICR... I don't automatically accept that if ICR said it, must be valid. But then, I don't accept anything at face value. You will recall a few years back, the National Enquirer broke the story of John Edwards affair. Normally, you would dismiss something reported by the Enquirer as "tabloid gossip" but in this case, they nailed it. By the same token, we are lied to and misled by editorial writers and journalists from mainstream sources daily. Anyone who tells you anything is subject to be misleading you and misinforming. Anyone can have an ulterior motive or agenda. You're crazy if you don't think Atheist and secular scientists don't have an agenda.

The article I posted earlier was specifically to address an argument made about chromosome fusion. The article points out the work of credible scientists in the field and their findings. I can't help the source was someone you don't favor. It doesn't invalidate the science. This isn't the opinion of ICR, they certainly have an agenda but it still doesn't negate the science. If ICR were to post an article about scientific research into dark matter, does that make dark matter automatically invalid? What if they post an article about gravity... does gravity not exist anymore because ICR said it did?

Do not know Dr. Tomkins
However, I am familiar with the work of ICR.

A little search on the web and it is demonstrated Mr. Tomkins argument does not disprove evolution because he misrepresents what evolution predicts. The research demonstrates what evolution predicts!!

Sorry if you got suckered by another ICR hit job. But that is what they do. OH--it is not like they made a mistake either. It was intentional!

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything regarding evolution or creation. I think it's ridiculous that we can't have a honest discussion on possibilities without having to constantly reiterate this point. Regardless of your bias toward ICR or Dr. Tomkins, can you refute the actual science? If so, present your case and stop trying to win the argument by destroying a source.
 
Modern humans haven't been around nearly long enough for that kind of variety.

And this is the problem with the whole of evolution "origins" theory. There is not enough time for everything to have evolved. All life forms depend on other life forms... how did they evolve to do that? I think, of all the aspects of ET, this is the most glaring contradiction. The circle of life, as it were.
 
By the way

Some proofs/disproofs cannot use the physical science.

Also, Science is not the be all and end all to every truth.

In other words, there are abstract concepts that can not be proved with physical experiments, but we do know these things exist through our experiences. . Maybe when psychology develops some more, maybe then. Maybe

And by the way--I trust no one associated with the ICR. Their goal is not to prove creationism is a valid science. Their goal is to prove that the Bible is the unerrant word of God.

They even have an illogical reason on why they attack evolution. They think if they debunk evolution, then creationism becomes valid automatically. Hate to burst their bubble, but science will create another theory that covers the fault and will not utilize GOD because using God in a theory is a closed theory. No research, no production, nothing to study without going to God and hoping God gives you the correct answers.

Yes, they will misrepresent, misinterpret and mishandle information on purpose to lead people "astray", which is a strange thing to say about people who wish to lead people to "God".

So, yes
ICR is something to laugh at since their lack of integrity is a serious joke. There is no need to debunk an article from ICR, like there is no need to debunk an article from the Onion.

I see it a little differently. I do agree there are things we can't physically prove that we know exist. Dark Matter is a good example. Physics doesn't prove it, math does. We can't directly observe or measure Dark Matter... so how do we know it exists? Mathematics proves it exists because it can calculate the gravity it has. We know it's there even though it doesn't "physically" appear to be there.

On sources like ICR... I don't automatically accept that if ICR said it, must be valid. But then, I don't accept anything at face value. You will recall a few years back, the National Enquirer broke the story of John Edwards affair. Normally, you would dismiss something reported by the Enquirer as "tabloid gossip" but in this case, they nailed it. By the same token, we are lied to and misled by editorial writers and journalists from mainstream sources daily. Anyone who tells you anything is subject to be misleading you and misinforming. Anyone can have an ulterior motive or agenda. You're crazy if you don't think Atheist and secular scientists don't have an agenda.

The article I posted earlier was specifically to address an argument made about chromosome fusion. The article points out the work of credible scientists in the field and their findings. I can't help the source was someone you don't favor. It doesn't invalidate the science. This isn't the opinion of ICR, they certainly have an agenda but it still doesn't negate the science. If ICR were to post an article about scientific research into dark matter, does that make dark matter automatically invalid? What if they post an article about gravity... does gravity not exist anymore because ICR said it did?

Do not know Dr. Tomkins
However, I am familiar with the work of ICR.

A little search on the web and it is demonstrated Mr. Tomkins argument does not disprove evolution because he misrepresents what evolution predicts. The research demonstrates what evolution predicts!!

Sorry if you got suckered by another ICR hit job. But that is what they do. OH--it is not like they made a mistake either. It was intentional!

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything regarding evolution or creation. I think it's ridiculous that we can't have a honest discussion on possibilities without having to constantly reiterate this point. Regardless of your bias toward ICR or Dr. Tomkins, can you refute the actual science? If so, present your case and stop trying to win the argument by destroying a source.

He misrepresented the predictions of the theory!

I stated that in the previous post.

He is giving a straw man argument!! He has not disproved evolution.

What do I need to give you to show that he did this? Links to science journals that says otherwise?

OH, by the way, yes I am bias against ICR. They have done such a wonderful job in misrepresenting, mistranslating and over all misunderstanding the science they present that untrustworthy is too good of a description.

After one or two papers, the center should have switch to a more rigorous peer review of research. But a consistent flow of bad papers and you might as well call it a Journal for Junk science.

Flat Earthers are better presenters of arguments than they are when the flat Earther is asleep!

No integrity. It seems to me that having a bias against someone with no integrity makes sense.
 
The point he was trying to make hinged on a false statement and an analogy of that statement. So how should I consider his point?

P.S. His analogy of the statement is wrong as well. So I can't say he is correct/incorrect from what he has given me!!

Hint: You're making the same kind of logical errors ...
 
The point he was trying to make hinged on a false statement and an analogy of that statement. So how should I consider his point?

P.S. His analogy of the statement is wrong as well. So I can't say he is correct/incorrect from what he has given me!!

Hint: You're making the same kind of logical errors ...

Point them out?

m/0 = infinity is a false mathematical statement

0*infinity= ? (In analysis, we say let it equal zero-- unless we are talking about limit processes and indeterminate forms)
 

Forum List

Back
Top