Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

[Gadawg73]

No, I trust it because it can demonstrate to me why I should.

And when science was teaching (as fact) that the earth was flat, you would have trusted that too, like the idiot you are.

Religion taught that the earth was flat.
Science corrected it and how many scientists were burned at the stake or persecuted getting to that point?

 

[Gadawg73]

Evolution is observable, just look at a house build 300 years ago, everything is smaller, rooms, doorways... meaning that as time goes by humans are getting taller. That's called evolution.

It is commonly believed that people living in the Middle Ages were much shorter than people living today. Much of this belief comes from the low doorways seen in some medieval houses and from the small suits of clothes and armor shown in museums. After an exhaustive study of hundreds of churchyard skeletons, however, British archaeologists Charlotte Roberts and Margaret Cox now say that the height difference has been highly exaggerated.

Roberts and Cox studied hundreds of skeletons from a churchyard in the abandoned medieval village of Wharram Percy in Yorkshire. They found that while “ten-year-olds were around 8 inches shorter than children today, by the time they were fully grown they were nearly as tall as modern adults.” Overall, adult heights of men and women have remained constant at about 5 foot 7 inches (170 cm) for men, and 5 foot 3 inches (160 cm) for women.

Concerning the short doorways and armor, Sebastian Payne, chief scientist at the English Heritage governmental agency, says that there are plenty of tall doors, and that lower doorways may simply have been a way to conserve heat. In addition, “recruits in 18th and 19th-century military records were considerably below today’s average heights,” because they “often came from poorer families whose average height is less, and were often not fully grown.”

Height is not from being poor.
Skinny is.
5'4" was the average height for a man in the middle ages.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Evolution is observable, just look at a house build 300 years ago, everything is smaller, rooms, doorways... meaning that as time goes by humans are getting taller. That's called evolution.

It is commonly believed that people living in the Middle Ages were much shorter than people living today. Much of this belief comes from the low doorways seen in some medieval houses and from the small suits of clothes and armor shown in museums. After an exhaustive study of hundreds of churchyard skeletons, however, British archaeologists Charlotte Roberts and Margaret Cox now say that the height difference has been highly exaggerated.

Roberts and Cox studied hundreds of skeletons from a churchyard in the abandoned medieval village of Wharram Percy in Yorkshire. They found that while “ten-year-olds were around 8 inches shorter than children today, by the time they were fully grown they were nearly as tall as modern adults.” Overall, adult heights of men and women have remained constant at about 5 foot 7 inches (170 cm) for men, and 5 foot 3 inches (160 cm) for women.

Concerning the short doorways and armor, Sebastian Payne, chief scientist at the English Heritage governmental agency, says that there are plenty of tall doors, and that lower doorways may simply have been a way to conserve heat. In addition, “recruits in 18th and 19th-century military records were considerably below today’s average heights,” because they “often came from poorer families whose average height is less, and were often not fully grown.”

Height is not from being poor.
Skinny is.
5'4" was the average height for a man in the middle ages.

Not according to these people that studied hundreds of skeletons from that era who say the average height was 5'7"

Should I believe reputable archeologists or some yahoo from Georgia?

I think I'll go with the archeologist on this one. Nothing personal.

 

[Gadawg73]

It is commonly believed that people living in the Middle Ages were much shorter than people living today. Much of this belief comes from the low doorways seen in some medieval houses and from the small suits of clothes and armor shown in museums. After an exhaustive study of hundreds of churchyard skeletons, however, British archaeologists Charlotte Roberts and Margaret Cox now say that the height difference has been highly exaggerated.

Roberts and Cox studied hundreds of skeletons from a churchyard in the abandoned medieval village of Wharram Percy in Yorkshire. They found that while “ten-year-olds were around 8 inches shorter than children today, by the time they were fully grown they were nearly as tall as modern adults.” Overall, adult heights of men and women have remained constant at about 5 foot 7 inches (170 cm) for men, and 5 foot 3 inches (160 cm) for women.

Concerning the short doorways and armor, Sebastian Payne, chief scientist at the English Heritage governmental agency, says that there are plenty of tall doors, and that lower doorways may simply have been a way to conserve heat. In addition, “recruits in 18th and 19th-century military records were considerably below today’s average heights,” because they “often came from poorer families whose average height is less, and were often not fully grown.”

Height is not from being poor.
Skinny is.
5'4" was the average height for a man in the middle ages.

Not according to these people that studied hundreds of skeletons from that era who say the average height was 5'7"

Should I believe reputable archeologists or some yahoo from Georgia?

I think I'll go with the archeologist on this one. Nothing personal.

1 archeologist from 1 graveyard.

 

[Gadawg73]

Lonestar is right, average height in middle ages was 5'8".
It declined in the 1500s and 1600s to 5'5".
Actually warmer weather stunted the growth.
Peaked again until the 1830s when Americans dropped another 2 inches.
Ohio State archeaological studies.
Racial and geographic differences play a part also.
But go back thousands of years and man has grown.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Height is not from being poor.
Skinny is.
5'4" was the average height for a man in the middle ages.

Not according to these people that studied hundreds of skeletons from that era who say the average height was 5'7"

Should I believe reputable archeologists or some yahoo from Georgia?

I think I'll go with the archeologist on this one. Nothing personal.

1 archeologist from 1 graveyard.

2 Acheologist and hundreds of graves. No mention of how many graveyards were looked at but don't let that stand in the way of your forgone conclusion.

 

[Gadawg73]

Not according to these people that studied hundreds of skeletons from that era who say the average height was 5'7"

Should I believe reputable archeologists or some yahoo from Georgia?

I think I'll go with the archeologist on this one. Nothing personal.

1 archeologist from 1 graveyard.

2 Acheologist and hundreds of graves. No mention of how many graveyards were looked at but don't let that stand in the way of your forgone conclusion.

Scroll down maestro or get new glasses.

 

[newpolitics]

Um, I think this debate is over. You just gave up your whole argument. The burden of proof is on you, and you are not able to meet that burden. So, why can't you just leave it to the individual to decide for themselves. Teach your theory to anybody who WANTS to listen, but don't push it on everyone else's kids just because YOU buy into it. It's morally wrong to force a captive audience to sign on to your beliefs.

What debate? This was me giving you a free lesson in science and all it going completely over your head. Whatever this was, was over when you said you could fly, and that because I hadn't proved you couldn't , it was true. I hope you someday realize how utterly idiotic that was. This debate never got off the ground, because You fail to grasp basic key concepts, such as what a scientific theory or the burden of proof is, yet claim that evolution science is bunk because you are not convinced? That's just a bit narcissistic, And an attempt to project your own ignorance onto the world. This is normal with the Christian fundamentalists. What's laughable is that by your standard, you must reject the theory of gravity too, yet won't admit to this embarrassing feature of your epistemology. I tried to honestly teach you about science, but it proved fruitless, because you are too indoctrinated to allow any information Regarding evolution in. You can not grasp that you select against evolution for no good reason. There is evidence for evolution, And lots of it, and the more that comes in, the stronger the theory gets. Your side has zero evidence, yet you complain. I've already pointed out the contradiction in your thinking, yet you failed entirely to address this. Evolution will continue to be taught in schools because it is demonstrable science. Someone who fails to understand basic science can not comment on what is good or bad science.

Like I said earlier, it always comes down to attacking the intelligence of the person who isn't buying what you're selling. Let me repeat this one more time. I don't give two shits what you choose to believe, but I get a little sick of you Evolution Nazis forcing your views on the rest of society.
You have contradicted yourself repeatedly, go back and read some of your attempts to "educate me". First you say you don't have to prove your theory, I have to disprove it. Then you say "the burden of proof is on the one making the claim".
You guys are typical liberals who think you have all the answers and anyone who disagrees with you must be dumb. You lobby politicians to force your views on everyone else through legislation.
Science is constantly proving itself wrong, but you have blind faith in it. That's your right, but it's not my obligation to walk in lockstep with your stupidity. So go ahead and resume your personal attacks, it's really all you have, since you have no actual proof. Have a nice day.

You are making me angry with your unwillingness to meet me halfway when Im sincerely trying to educate you. I'm going to try to sort out what you see as a contradiction. I can actually understand why you are having difficulty with it. Perhaps I did not explain it too well.

Those who make positive claims bear the burden of proving it. It is not on others to disprove it. For instance, I claim that unicorns exists. I have to provide evidence of this. It's the same with god.

Scientific theories are proposed explanations for an observed set of phenomena. Those who purpose a theory have the burden of providing evidence. A scientific theory differs from a simple claim, in that it can not be proven. This is the distinction you must understand. You claimed you could fly. This can other be proven or disprove outright with a simple demonstration. However, A scientific theory can substantiated with evidence, but never proven, only disproven. A scientific theory is the highest point in science. A theory can never be proven, unlike a claim. A theory may make claims or predictions, which can be proven, but the the theory itself can not be proven.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why not teach Hansel & Gretel as science ? It's a better story than the Bible.

Hi Bonzai: I can offer you some very general ideas from the Bible that you won't get from fairy tales.

A Buddhist monk once summarized the point of the Bible this way:
The Old Testament is about living by the letter of the law
The New Testament is about living by the spirit of the law

I love that, and find it applies to the church and state as well, going through stages of development which reflect humanity's spiritual growth toward maturity as well.

If you have ever read about the 5 stages of grief and recovery,
that pretty much sums up what humanity is going through, and every person in life.
And that pattern is also represented in the Bible.

The innocence at the beginning, the falling out where you lose it all,
the recovery process, and ending up better than before when you forgive the past
and pay forward to a better future instead of paying back in retribution.

So we learn to live by the spirit and heal the past and all relationships, not to stay stuck in the past, picking at and blaming each other by the letter and making our lives miserable.

I call it moving from retributive justice to restorative justice, which Christ Jesus represents in spirit. This fulfills both the church laws in the Bible as well as the natural/secular laws of the state. So the point is to restore all relations in good faith by agreeing in truth to set humanity free from division strife and suffering, and reach spiritual peace and harmony.

That is the basic message in the Bible, based on seeking truth with love in the spirit of forgiveness and correction, or justice with mercy, which is the message in Christianity.

 

[emilynghiem]

You are making me angry with your unwillingness to meet me halfway when Im sincerely trying to educate you. I'm going to try to sort out what you see as a contradiction. I can actually understand why you are having difficulty with it. Perhaps I did not explain it too well.

Those who make positive claims bear the burden of proving it. It is not on others to disprove it. For instance, I claim that unicorns exists. I have to provide evidence of this. It's the same with god.

Scientific theories are proposed explanations for an observed set of phenomena. Those who purpose a theory have the burden of providing evidence. A scientific theory differs from a simple claim, in that it can not be proven. This is the distinction you must understand. You claimed you could fly. This can other be proven or disprove outright with a simple demonstration. However, A scientific theory can substantiated with evidence, but never proven, only disproven. A scientific theory is the highest point in science. A theory can never be proven, unlike a claim. A theory may make claims or predictions, which can be proven, but the the theory itself can not be proven.

Dear NP: I believe what this will prove is the frustration is mutual.
It's okay to give up this approach and switch to something more proveable with impact.
Again, I believe that will come about by applying scientific study to spiritual healing.
Some of the same fundamentlists on both sides will object, but that is part of the process of change is to overcome fear of change. Healing effects of forgiveness and especially deliverance prayer can be proven before any of this creation evolution stuff.
Your words and talents are too valuable to waste where things cannot be visibly proven.
Let's look for other areas that would be worth your attention and investment.

I support and encourage you, and do not want
you sidetracked when you could be hitting the target bullseye, even seeing a Nobel or
Templeton prize when science is used to prove something tangible about spiritual energy!
Stay big, think bigger!
Bigger than that even!
Yours truly,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

No, thank you for confirming that the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your theory, not mine to disprove it.

In reality, in human relations,
it is the person trying to change the mind of the other
who takes on the burden of proof to show why (based on the other person's
viewpoint framework or understanding or else the proof fails if they don't get it).

If you are both trying to change each other,
both of you have equal responsibility to explain why.

Again, in terms of the person you are trying to change!
You can explain in your own terms and perception till you're red white and blue in the face, but in reality, people won't get it unless it is shown using their own terms they commit to.

Either change the terms you are using which the other person doesn't relate to as you do.
Or focus on a point that you can get somewhere with.
No use in blaming the other person, who is just as frustrated and cannot see your side either. That's just human and we can't help that we don't always see things the same way.

If you must give up on this, try something else.
Eventually by trial and error, hit or miss, you will work something out
and reach an agreement on some point that you can hit right on the head.

 

[S.J.]

What debate? This was me giving you a free lesson in science and all it going completely over your head. Whatever this was, was over when you said you could fly, and that because I hadn't proved you couldn't , it was true. I hope you someday realize how utterly idiotic that was. This debate never got off the ground, because You fail to grasp basic key concepts, such as what a scientific theory or the burden of proof is, yet claim that evolution science is bunk because you are not convinced? That's just a bit narcissistic, And an attempt to project your own ignorance onto the world. This is normal with the Christian fundamentalists. What's laughable is that by your standard, you must reject the theory of gravity too, yet won't admit to this embarrassing feature of your epistemology. I tried to honestly teach you about science, but it proved fruitless, because you are too indoctrinated to allow any information Regarding evolution in. You can not grasp that you select against evolution for no good reason. There is evidence for evolution, And lots of it, and the more that comes in, the stronger the theory gets. Your side has zero evidence, yet you complain. I've already pointed out the contradiction in your thinking, yet you failed entirely to address this. Evolution will continue to be taught in schools because it is demonstrable science. Someone who fails to understand basic science can not comment on what is good or bad science.

Like I said earlier, it always comes down to attacking the intelligence of the person who isn't buying what you're selling. Let me repeat this one more time. I don't give two shits what you choose to believe, but I get a little sick of you Evolution Nazis forcing your views on the rest of society.
You have contradicted yourself repeatedly, go back and read some of your attempts to "educate me". First you say you don't have to prove your theory, I have to disprove it. Then you say "the burden of proof is on the one making the claim".
You guys are typical liberals who think you have all the answers and anyone who disagrees with you must be dumb. You lobby politicians to force your views on everyone else through legislation.
Science is constantly proving itself wrong, but you have blind faith in it. That's your right, but it's not my obligation to walk in lockstep with your stupidity. So go ahead and resume your personal attacks, it's really all you have, since you have no actual proof. Have a nice day.

You are making me angry with your unwillingness to meet me halfway when Im sincerely trying to educate you. I'm going to try to sort out what you see as a contradiction. I can actually understand why you are having difficulty with it. Perhaps I did not explain it too well.

Those who make positive claims bear the burden of proving it. It is not on others to disprove it. For instance, I claim that unicorns exists. I have to provide evidence of this. It's the same with god.

Scientific theories are proposed explanations for an observed set of phenomena. Those who purpose a theory have the burden of providing evidence. A scientific theory differs from a simple claim, in that it can not be proven. This is the distinction you must understand. You claimed you could fly. This can other be proven or disprove outright with a simple demonstration. However, A scientific theory can substantiated with evidence, but never proven, only disproven. A scientific theory is the highest point in science. A theory can never be proven, unlike a claim. A theory may make claims or predictions, which can be proven, but the the theory itself can not be proven.

The idea that you need to educate me is laughable and shows your absolute arrogance. If I wanted a private teacher I would certainly pick a better one than you. You've contradicted yourself in nearly every post. Your only argument in your inability to prove your theory is that you don't have to prove a damn thing, I'm just supposed to take your word for it. But I, on the other hand, am required to prove my beliefs. So spare me the condescension.

 

[S.J.]

In reality, in human relations,
it is the person trying to change the mind of the other
who takes on the burden of proof to show why (based on the other person's
viewpoint framework or understanding or else the proof fails if they don't get it).

If you are both trying to change each other,
both of you have equal responsibility to explain why.

I'm not trying to change his mind. I don't care what he chooses to believe, I just don't want him trying to force his beliefs on the rest of us. He can't prove anything. If his theory was provable, the majority of the country would be atheists.

 

[newpolitics]

The idea that you need to educate me is laughable and shows your absolute arrogance. If I wanted a private teacher I would certainly pick a better one than you. You've contradicted yourself in nearly every post. Your only argument in your inability to prove your theory is that you don't have to prove a damn thing, I'm just supposed to take your word for it. But I, on the other hand, am required to prove my beliefs. So spare me the condescension.

You don't understand what a scientific theory is, as you have demonstrated, yet you claim a major scientific theory is bunk. You need a lot of help.

 

[newpolitics]

What's laughable is that you think there isn't mounds of evidence in support of evolution, and that it is a theory on equal footing as creation, which is predicated on a deity for which there truly is no evidence.

The fact that you can't follow me, doesn't mean that I am laying down a contradiction. It just means you can't follow me. That you would say scientific theories are contradictions is also laughable.

 

[S.J.]

You don't understand what a scientific theory is, as you have demonstrated, yet you claim a major scientific theory is bunk. You need a lot of help.

I understand perfectly. YOU are the one who doesn't understand, I ain't buyin' what you're sellin'. And if legitimate scientists can't prove it, I'm sure you won't be able to.

 

[S.J.]

What's laughable is that you think there isn't mounds of evidence in support of evolution, and that it is a theory on equal footing as creation, which is predicated on a deity for which there truly is no evidence.

Maybe you missed the first 100 times I said it, but unlike you, I don't CARE if you believe in God or not. Why do you keep throwing that out?

 

[newpolitics]

You don't understand what a scientific theory is, as you have demonstrated, yet you claim a major scientific theory is bunk. You need a lot of help.

I understand perfectly. YOU are the one who doesn't understand, I ain't buyin' what you're sellin'. And if legitimate scientists can't prove it, I'm sure you won't be able to.

What Im selling? Your kidding right? You act so self righteous. I am merely giving you definitions of basic terms you obviously don't understand, and you throw it back in my face as if I am perpetrating some wrong. It's ridiculous. Grow up.

 

[zombiehunter696]

You don't understand what a scientific theory is, as you have demonstrated, yet you claim a major scientific theory is bunk. You need a lot of help.

I understand perfectly. YOU are the one who doesn't understand, I ain't buyin' what you're sellin'. And if legitimate scientists can't prove it, I'm sure you won't be able to.

What Im selling? Your kidding right? You act so self righteous. I am merely giving you definitions of basic terms you obviously don't understand, and you throw it back in my face as if I am perpetrating some wrong. It's ridiculous. Grow up.

Don't worry too much. You might not be getting to this idiot, but there might be some lurkers out there you are educating and that's what's important.

I can't tell if this guy is just being antagonistic or honestly doesn't understand what's going on.

 

[newpolitics]

I understand perfectly. YOU are the one who doesn't understand, I ain't buyin' what you're sellin'. And if legitimate scientists can't prove it, I'm sure you won't be able to.

What Im selling? Your kidding right? You act so self righteous. I am merely giving you definitions of basic terms you obviously don't understand, and you throw it back in my face as if I am perpetrating some wrong. It's ridiculous. Grow up.

Don't worry too much. You might not be getting to this idiot, but there might be some lurkers out there you are educating and that's what's important.

I can't tell if this guy is just being antagonistic or honestly doesn't understand what's going on.

I appreciate that. I can't tell either.