[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionist's debating tactics

[Barbarian]

And what's primitive? Covered in hair?

No. I am, for example, covered with hair. So are you, and every other human. It's fine and almost invisible in most areas, but it's there. But that's not what makes H. erectus primitive relative to us.

You take all the hair off the drawings of primitive man, and draw long silky hair on the woman, put on some eye make-up on her and different clothes and you have the image of a woman who didn't look much different than today's woman!

Wrong. Even a highly-evolved human like a Neandertal would be noticably different than we are, if you cleaned him up, gave him a shave and a haircut, and put him in a suit.

And H. erectus was even more different. The skull was quite different, although the postcranial skeleton would have been almost completely like ours.

And what do you suppose the skull of the Elephant man looked like or Andre the Giant looked like? I can only imagine what voluminous theories scientists would come up with if they found a skull like that in the desert!

We do, from time to time. There's an entire branch of archaeology dedicated to diagnosing ancient disorders like that. Andre, BTW, certainly seems to be within the normal range for human skull shape, although it's on the far edge of normal for size.

 

[Slevin]

Re:

And what do you suppose the skull of the Elephant man looked like or Andre the Giant looked like? I can only imagine what voluminous theories scientists would come up with if they found a skull like that in the desert!

Yes, like someone with elephantitis dying in the desert!? Wow!! :crazyeyes:

 

[Guest]

Re:

As I already posted in reply to you in another thread, a man is considered innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the burden of proof is always on the accuser, my friend. Jesus has already provided evidence of his existence. It's up to you to provide evidence that he is lying or it is simply slander.

If an author writes a book and quotes someone else's words, it called libel if people accuse the one who is quoted of lying without evidence that he is lying. Accusing people of lying when you have no proof of it is nothing but malicious slander...and of one who suffered and died for you, no less. Only people without a conscience would do that to someone who gave up his life for them.

Heidi, first of all, the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is an idea that exists in the US Judicial System, not in the Bible , quite contrary... we should not judge people PERIOD, that's God's job

Heidi, your analogies are fundamentally flawed: you try to compare two things which don't make sense (they don't even sound like they make sense). You are completely contradicting yourself, you are claiming that scientists are lying about evolution, yet you have no proof of that- clear slander. And your arguments against evolution are fundamentally wrong:
1. you show no understanding of evolution.
2. you show no understanding of biological classification.
3. you show no understanding of how geological research works.

Heidi, please think about what you're writing... I have no clue how you can argue a point which you have little or no understanding of it. In addition, if you're a Christian, you fail to use one of your most treasured gifts from God: Reason!
Albeit Reason and Religion don't exist on the same planes, at least we can see why your arguments fall outside the scope of logic.

 

[Guest]

And what do you suppose the skull of the Elephant man looked like or Andre the Giant looked like? I can only imagine what voluminous theories scientists would come up with if they found a skull like that in the desert!

We do, from time to time. There's an entire branch of archaeology dedicated to diagnosing ancient disorders like that. Andre, BTW, certainly seems to be within the normal range for human skull shape, although it's on the far edge of normal for size.

And I wonder what Christians would make of that? : God's failed attempt at making Adam? First try was a no go