Rush Limbaugh attempts to debunk evolution: "Why isn't Harambe the ape one of us?"

[Hammerfest]

What? Yes it is.

No its not. Try again.

[Celista]

A flaw in your request if they do not believe that fossils are millions of years old.

Yes...I would be interested in hearing his views on carbon dating.

[Kalis]

Yes...I would be interested in hearing his views on carbon dating.

Why would you want to suffer the pain of that, it is just going to be rehashed Kent Hovind?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yes...I would be interested in hearing his views on carbon dating.

See for yourself:

I'd go into how fake fossils and carbon dating are, but they'd ban me on conspiracy charges. So I guess the forum will have to live in ignorance.

[Sky High]

No its not. Try again.

what's next? you going to argue that granite isn't a rock?

[Celista]

Why would you want to suffer the pain of that, it is just going to be rehashed Kent Hovind?

That's fine, his views are easy to refute.

- - - Updated - - -

See for yourself:

Lol. Hammerfest you should be able to argue from a scientific standpoint.

[Endus]

No its not. Try again.

The three options are "animal", "vegetable", or "mineral". They're clearly not mineral. A great many types of bacteria aren't plants. Hodgkinia bacteria are decidedly animals.

You're flat-out wrong about what words mean, at this point.

I mean, realistically, it's an outdated set of terminology, but I'm stooping down to that level out of graciousness, rather than correcting you as to proper terminology.

[Mormolyce]

No its not. Try again.

You're really going to make a distinction between eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms?

In a thread that can't tell the difference between a gorilla and an ape?

[timberx]

The three options are "animal", "vegetable", or "mineral". They're clearly not mineral. A great many types of bacteria aren't plants. Hodgkinia bacteria are decidedly animals.

You're flat-out wrong about what words mean, at this point.

I mean, realistically, it's an outdated set of terminology, but I'm stooping down to that level out of graciousness, rather than correcting you as to proper terminology.

He means they're not animals, as in they're not part of the animal kingdom. They're prokaryotes.

[SoulForge]

He means they're not animals, as in they're not part of the animal kingdom. They're prokaryotes.

Irrelevant. They are living organisms on this planet.

His request was silly to begin with. Especially since no one claimed evolution worked the way he wants evidence for for larger critters.

[timberx]

Irrelevant. They are living organisms on this planet.

His request was silly to begin with. Especially since no one claimed evolution worked the way he wants evidence for for larger critters.

I know, I already asked him why he was arbitrarily being so specific. I think he has me on ignore though.

[Endus]

He means they're not animals, as in they're not part of the animal kingdom. They're prokaryotes.

And that's what I meant by "outdated terminology".

You're confusing me allowing for the clumsy term used by Hammerfest with me saying it has much relevance to modern biology.

[Deleted]

In all honesty Rush Limbaugh kind of does debunk evolution just by existing. Then again, he also debunks intelligent design at the same time.

[SoulForge]

In all honesty Rush Limbaugh kind of does debunk evolution just by existing. Then again, he also debunks intelligent design at the same time.

A sudden mutation with the stupid gene doesn't make the whole species dumb. Just this single individual. Its not a superior gene so it will die with him we hope.

[timberx]

And that's what I meant by "outdated terminology".

You're confusing me allowing for the clumsy term used by Hammerfest with me saying it has much relevance to modern biology.

Wait, the six kingdoms are outdated? Now I feel old.

[Endus]

Wait, the six kingdoms are outdated? Now I feel old.

"Animal" isn't necessarily a reference to the Animalia kingdom. See the earlier division I noted; it used to be "animal, vegetable, mineral". That we now separate "vegetable" into certain prokaryotes, fungi, and plants is sort of beside the point.

Regardless, I could point at certain galapagos finches, if you REALLY wanted a member of Animalia to work with.

[Gref]

Carbon tests are fake, fossils are plastic... whats next earth is flat?

I really wonder. If you happen to find a fossil yourself, you do a carbon test yourself, if we put people on a rocket and send them space to clearly see earth is not flat,

Would they still call it fake,plastic and flat?

[Calfredd]

"Animal" isn't necessarily a reference to the Animalia kingdom. See the earlier division I noted; it used to be "animal, vegetable, mineral". That we now separate "vegetable" into certain prokaryotes, fungi, and plants is sort of beside the point.

Regardless, I could point at certain galapagos finches, if you REALLY wanted a member of Animalia to work with.

Was kind of thinking of bringing up the peppered moth myself but since Hammerfist doesn't count mutations and adaptations as part of evolution I decided against it.

[Hammerfest]

The three options are "animal", "vegetable", or "mineral". They're clearly not mineral. A great many types of bacteria aren't plants. Hodgkinia bacteria are decidedly animals.

"I am the very model of a modern-major general. I've information vegetable, animal and mineral." - Gilbert & Sullivan

Bacteria is not an animal. Here's a reminder on our current "score." I declared that science has not observed an animal evolve into another animal. You then stated I was wrong, in no uncertain terms, and then wouldn't provide an example for several pages/hours. Then you tried being condescending and insulting me (which is typical of you, I might add) and when I returned in kind only then did you actually name something and that something wasn't an animal.

I mean, realistically, it's an outdated set of terminology, but I'm stooping down to that level out of graciousness, rather than correcting you as to proper terminology.

And now that you haven't provided an example that demonstrates that what I said was wrong you are resorting to semantics. This is also typical. There's a pattern with you, Endus. You do the same stuff to me and others on this forum over and over. I'm not playing your game anymore.

Let me offer you some common sense. Since you obviously hold yourself above the common denominator, you should be able to understand this. If science had actually observed an animal evolve into another animal, that animal would be known. Not just in little science publications that are only read by the scientific elite, but everywhere. It would have been released into pop culture and shouted from the proverbial rooftops and even the most dimwitted consumer of pop culture would be aware of said animal. The fact that you sputtered and stalled as long as you did before producing a response, that wasn't even what was asked for, demonstrates further that science has not observed an animal evolve into another animal. You probably have no idea how badly you've come off here today.

[Endus]

"I am the very model of a modern-major general. I've information vegetable, animal and mineral." - Gilbert & Sullivan

Bacteria is not an animal. Here's a reminder on our current "score." I declared that science has not observed an animal evolve into another animal. You then stated I was wrong, in no uncertain terms, and then wouldn't provide an example for several pages/hours.

You mean "provided in my next post responding to you, but which you refused to read, for no reason you've actually managed to explain to any satisfaction other than resorting to what amounted to a "NO U" argument".

Hell, I provided examples before you even asked, in this post here.

After you asked specifically, I provided further examples, in this post here.

You're just continuing to deliberately lie at this point. It's pretty damned clear.