₦airaland Forum

UyiIredia:
Sure. If those branches of science are using poor reasoning.

So all the branches of science are using poor reasoning?
Wow I'm sorry but this is the stupidest statement I've heard in a long while.

UyiIredia:
I beg your pardon. Hominin ancestor. Why are they classified as hominin ancestors and not humans ?

Because humans are derived from them. Humans are still hominids.

Lennycool:
The Egyptian civilization is not older than 7,000 years, stop being ignorant on purpose. There is absolutely no proof for creationism so you guys are grasping straws

7000 years is a lot of time. But just check out living fossils which are fossils of species which exist today. These species where supposedly unchanged for millions of years. In fact, this contradicts evolution.

Tallesty1:
Why then did we suddenly stop evolving?

'suddenly stop' ke

I have a feeling; a strong feeling; that you envison evolution as some kind of orderly process that happens in a well-defined process and creates new species in a short number of years.


It isn't.


Evolution is a long; ardous process involving thousands; sometimes MILLIONS of years before transition into a new species.

It can be positive or negative. Heck; Nature itself RESISTS evolution (Mother natures dislikes change and evolution is the flagbearer for change).


If we were able to take a video camera back about 400 millions years ago; and do an insane fast forward; then, and only then, can you see actual species transform.....can you see evolution in action.

UyiIredia:
'Genetics is based on Universal Common Ancestry.' LOL.

I know you won't follow this link but here goes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C1628326578

Lennycool:
Yeah sure and what about molecular biology and DNA analysis. What about transition fossils like that of whales and that of dinosaurs and birds, or giraffes? Are they all wrong? Are the scientist all tricking us? By the way you didn't answer my question. Is it common sense to argue against all the branches of science.

And so what about them. I've already said evolutionist presume evolution from similar DNA sequences. It is bogus to say a fossil is a transitional species or proves ancestry. Even in humans whom we have enough data on we can't tell ancestry by looking at bones. And yet you want me to take seriously the idea that scientists can determine phylogeny from looking at fossils. I answered your question, look it up please.

CoolUsername:
I know you won't follow this link but here goes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C1628326578

I've read it. And nowhere does it say genetics is based on universal common ancestry. You should say cladistics.

[quote author=raphieMontella post=50563684][/quote]An atheist scientists? Wow even I didn't know that, thank you raphiemontella.

SirWere:
'suddenly stop' ke

I have a feeling; a strong feeling; that you envison evolution as some kind of orderly process that happens in a well-defined process and creates new species in a short number of years.


It isn't.


Evolution is a long; ardous process involving thousands; sometimes MILLIONS of years before transition into a new species.

It can be positive or negative. Heck; Nature itself RESISTS evolution (Mother natures dislikes change and evolution is the flagbearer for change).


If we were able to take a video camera back about 400 millions years ago; and do an insane fast forward; then, and only then, can you see actual species transform.....can you see evolution in action.

Nice speculation.

UyiIredia:
No. It doesn't. In fact, the very definition of atavism presumes evolution. It's a classic case of circular reasoning.

its not circular reasoning...
Like the kids born with ''tails''...
Thats as a result of the failure of the embyonic tail which is a developing coccyx-----the ''continuation'' of the vertebral column to regress...
If humans were created ''distinctively''..such wouldnt occur...as the ''tails'' are always from there...
Atavism is not in only humans btw...it occurs in other species and its inline with the relationship proposed by darwinism...
Design wont have us be linked with other species in the way we see it today...as they are clearly distinct..only common ancestry....

Lennycool:
So all the branches of science are using poor reasoning?
Wow I'm sorry but this is the stupidest statement I've heard in a long while.

When it concerns evolution yes. Probably in other areas too but I can't say. Why does that surprise you ? Scientists have believed in ridiculous things before.

SirWere:
Hello;

Evolution is NOT a belief system. It is a topic in biology that has been proved to be true and as such; is recognized as a theory.

It is not an evil organization or a "conspiracy plot". It's not the Anti-christ's plan or the Devil's new method of infiltration..
It is simply an extensive field of study with millions of biologists; palentologists, anthropologists ec cetera; directly involved in broadening humankind's knowledge about how we got here and the common ancestry all animals (including us) share.

God bless you, that's what I've been saying since the dawn of time. But prejudice is too strong

raphieMontella:
its not circular reasoning...
Like the kids born with ''tails''...
Thats as a result of the failure of the embyonic tail which is a developing coccyx-----the ''continuation'' of the vertebral column to regress...
If humans were created ''distinctively''..such wouldnt occur...as the ''tails'' are always from there...
Atavism is not in only humans btw...it occurs in other species and its inline with the relationship proposed by darwinism...
Design wont have us be linked with other species in the way we see it today...as they are clearly distinct..only common ancestry....

'an atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such
as traits reappearing that had disappeared generations
before.' - Wikipedia

Therefore if you say it is evidence of evolution you are using circular reasoning.

UyiIredia:
I've read it. And nowhere does it say genetics is based on universal common ancestry. You should say cladistics.

Um...

CoolUsername:
That's complete hogwash. Those skulls lack the giant cranium to house a human brain. The reason they resemble humans is due to common ancestry.

The last one clearly has a large cranium like humans.

CoolUsername:
Um...

And that says Genetics is based on universal common ancestry. Bros, you blind ?

UyiIredia:
7000 years is a lot of time. But just check out living fossils which are fossils of species which exist today. These species where supposedly unchanged for millions of years. In fact, this contradicts evolution.

this is wrong tho...seems you're looking at evolution from a weird angle...let me help..

1)Living fossils would only contradict evolution...if they are found in every other layer(upper) apart from that singular layer they were once found...
2)theres nowhere in darwinism that states that -----all individuals of a specie must evolve morphologically...
3)living fossils would contradict evolution..if they are found in a lower layer than the way darwinism proposes---e.g finding a ''living vertebrate fossil'' in the fossil layers of ''invertebrates''..

UyiIredia:
No, it isn't. I've read Wikipedia's evolution article, Understanding Evolution from UC Berkeley's website, The Blind Watchmaker & The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins, The Origin Of The Species among others. Not to mention several scientific papers evolutionists have thrown my way during during debates with them.

I'm not religious. Which would come as a surprise to some since I'm changing my stance yet again so religion absolutely does not factor into my rejection of the theory. Just a good dose of common sense.

Just look at the bolded, what a bloody liar, unbiased my foot, below is a thread he created and his profile is lined with many more
https://www.nairaland.com/2930300/isaiah-45-7-atheists

He's as unbiased to evolution as the KKK is unbiased about racial tolerance

UyiIredia:
'an atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such
as traits reappearing that had disappeared generations
before.' - Wikipedia

Therefore if you say it is evidence of evolution you are using circular reasoning.

are embroyological similarities circular reasoning ?
Read what i sent you..its a description of how the atavistic trait----tails..
Appear in modern homosapiens..

UyiIredia:
The last one clearly has a large cranium like humans.

Affixed to the post will be the skunk you are taking about closely forward by the skull of a homo sapien.

UyiIredia:
And that says Genetics is based on universal common ancestry. Bros, you blind ?

Genetics deals with heredity, the more similar the DNA sequence, the more closely related they are. Simple.

Of course it was my fault for expecting you to know this.

Lennycool:
Just look at the bolded, what a bloody liar, unbiased my foot, below is a thread he created and his profile is lined with many more
https://www.nairaland.com/2930300/isaiah-45-7-atheists

He's as unbiased as the KKK is promoting racial tolerance

Lol. Did you miss these ?

https://www.nairaland.com/1223100/uyi-iredia-sees-light-denies

https://www.nairaland.com/1526066/proposition-1-religion-lie

https://www.nairaland.com/1456880/believe-god-without-religion

https://www.nairaland.com/1906288/christianity-deism-back

And for context, I'm back to being a deist again.

UyiIredia:
I'm not religious. Which would come as a surprise to some since I'm changing my stance yet again .

Yet again ? To what ?

CoolUsername:
Affixed to the post will be the skunk you are taking about closely forward by the skull of a homo sapien.

And ? Is the cranium not large.

raphieMontella:
this your progressive creationism...ion understand...
Are you saying that your god has been failing?

Nope .

KingEbukasBlog:
Yet again ? To what ?

Deism.

CoolUsername:
Evolution has been observed while creationism hasn't.

Also, why did progressive creationism stop?

Progressive creationism has not stopped . The last act of creation I suppose will come very soon . Sooner than I thought .

Macro-evolution has never been observed .

UyiIredia:
Deism.

I knew it !

UyiIredia:
Deism.

But if you are a deist , which god will respond to your signature

UyiIredia:
Lol. Did you miss these ?

https://www.nairaland.com/1223100/uyi-iredia-sees-light-denies

https://www.nairaland.com/1526066/proposition-1-religion-lie

https://www.nairaland.com/1456880/believe-god-without-religion

https://www.nairaland.com/1906288/christianity-deism-back

And for context, I'm back to being a deist again.

oh you are smart that's for sure, you can no longer hide behind the lie of being unbiased you want to claim deist ?

Lennycool:
An atheist scientists? Wow even I didn't know that, thank you raphiemontella.

uwc

UyiIredia:
And ? Is the cranium not large.

Does the human cranium have an indented forehead? Do the human eye sockets have such protrusion? Look at the cheekbone to jaw ratio of the two. Look at the balloon-y skull of the human. Everyone can now see your dishonesty.

I'm done here...