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

[Eviscero]

Ironic that the motivation for your rejection of "some interpretations" relies on beliefs based on no tangible observations. Have fun with that.

Ptero gets it, spinner981. Read carefully.

[Ripster42]

That isn't how it works, again. You using evolution as your basis for life's existence applies to other life. You are essentually claiming this is how it is on Earth, while stating it could be completely different elsewhere which opens up an entirely different can of worms making your view less credible. You essentially dimish the value of the theory of evolution because life could of been created based now off of one of these other theories you have concocted. Evolution is either absolute or it is flawed.

Evolution has little to nothing to do with the origin of life. You've been told this multiple times. It's not required that all life undergo the process of evolution, it's just been observed that all life we've studied for signs of evolution on earth does. You've been told this multiple times.

[spinner981]

That's a problem with the imprecision of human labels, and one species undergoing the process of speciation. It's not actually a paradox once you understand the limitations of the word species. Ring species don't debunk the definition of species, it's just a phenomenon that lets you see a snapshot of the speciation process in progress. It seems like the reason you think ring species debunk the definition of species is because you haven't actually wrapped your head around the process of speciation.

I never thought about it like that; being a state of transition that is. Of course I realize it is merely a shortcoming of the definition. However, I still remain unconvinced to the idea that fulfilling these various definitions of species proves that all life on the planet has a common ancestor.

[Hammerfest]

Well yes? If your next move is to claim you've seen el diablo or ghosts or whatever, then my next move is to ask evidence... which you cannot provide, 100% quarantee on that.

Good thing that wasn't what I would have said.

[Ripster42]

Naaa, it's pretty relevant when the conversation is about what I believe.



I didn't make up the term "secular humanism."

You did, however, redefine it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

You did, however, redefine it.

Or at least he made a very clumsy attempt at doing so.

[zorkuus]

I don't think religion saves people, if that's what you mean.

No, try again. Why do you ridicule evolution or the BBT because you think they're a religion? Is this you subconsciously admitting religion is all blind faith and illogical?

[Eliseus]

Evolution has little to nothing to do with the origin of life. You've been told this multiple times. It's not required that all life undergo the process of evolution, it's just been observed that all life we've studied for signs of evolution on earth does. You've been told this multiple times.

Yet you claim you know where we came from.

[spinner981]

Ptero gets it, spinner981. Read carefully.

Yes, I get it. I believe your interpretations are wrong because I have different interpretations, and you believe my interpretations because you refuse to believe in the existence of my observations. That's all fine and dandy. I can't force you to believe something. But pretending that I am wrong based entirely on the reasoning that you personally reject the premises that I have accepted is a bit close-minded.

[Eviscero]

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t

"especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies"

Note that it uses the term 'especially' not exclusively. Any set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature or purpose of the universe would therefore be a religion.



You know I see a lot of these kinds of allegations a lot, but nobody ever seems to want to back them up.

Huh? Huge amounts of physical evidence showing Earth is much older than 6000 years, literally none showing otherwise. Start there.

[spinner981]

no its not. because the big bang is not a belief based in faith, it does not follow a ritual observance, there arent evolution gods or angels (no darwin is not one)
its like saying abstinence is a sex position

Like I told Endus. Everything is a belief, or do you really think that you were born believing in the big bang as some sort of truth inherent to our very existence?

[Celista]

have you taken a class in biology. its real simple. like your dog can prove it. pugs didnt naturaly occur we bred certin dogs selectivly to aquire certin trait such as breeding short dogs with other short dogs over generations.

evolution is the same but instead of a human. its the pressure of for example. being able to run faster and longer then a predator.

Dogs and wolves can still interbreed, though. Which is supposed to be one of the defining characteristics of a species...only able to breed with one another...probably why they are considered a subspecies of Canis lupus rather than a separate species.

[Kalis]

That isn't how it works, again. You using evolution as your basis for life's existence applies to other life. You are essentually claiming this is how it is on Earth, while stating it could be completely different elsewhere which opens up an entirely different can of worms making your view less credible. You essentially dimish the value of the theory of evolution because life could of been created based now off of one of these other theories you have concocted. Evolution is either absolute or it is flawed.

No, evolution is not the basis for the existence of life, that is abiogenesis.

Until we know what form abiogenesis takes elsewhere, if it has even happened, then we can not say if evolution is applicable to it. You are saying that we should know an answer to something that we do not know anything about, it is a silly request.

You keep getting abiogenesis and evolution mixed up, then throwing in complete unknowns as if they somehow disprove anything.


Answer this question...



I have not asked one, but you still need to answer it to my satisfaction, which is what you are asking me to do, so good luck answering it.

[Eviscero]

Yes, I get it. I believe your interpretations are wrong because I have different interpretations, and you believe my interpretations because you refuse to believe in the existence of my observations. That's all fine and dandy. I can't force you to believe something. But pretending that I am wrong based entirely on the reasoning that you personally reject the premises that I have accepted is a bit close-minded.

Based on your observations? Liiikkke, the Holy Spirit whispers things to you, those sorts of 'observations.'

[Thepersona]

Yet you claim you know where we came from.

we come from star stuff

[Ripster42]

I never thought about it like that; being a state of transition that is. Of course I realize it is merely a shortcoming of the definition. However, I still remain unconvinced to the idea that fulfilling these various definitions of species proves that all life on the planet has a common ancestor.

The word "species" is just a label that makes things easier to categorize. Biology in action (life) doesn't really give a shit about our labels. The very definition of the word species throws up a barrier to understanding evolution because it implies demarcations where there are not necessarily any clear demarcations.

[spinner981]

Huh? Huge amounts of physical evidence showing Earth is much older than 6000 years, literally none showing otherwise. Start there.

Once again with the superficial claims and superficial accusations. I provide my evidences to support my beliefs, you reject them or explain them away. You provide your evidences to support your beliefs, I reject them or explain them away. We can go back and forth like this all night but it won't get us anywhere you know.

[Thepersona]

Dogs and wolves can still interbreed, though. Which is supposed to be one of the defining characteristics of a species...only able to breed with one another...probably why they are considered a subspecies of Canis lupus rather than a separate species.

well thats why in fact dogs are a sub-species of wolves (canis lupus familiaris)

[spinner981]

Huh? Huge amounts of physical evidence showing Earth is much older than 6000 years, literally none showing otherwise. Start there.

Once again with the superficial claims and superficial accusations. I provide my evidences to support my beliefs, you reject them or explain them away. You provide your evidences to support your beliefs, I reject them or explain them away. We can go back and forth like this all night but it won't get us anywhere you know.

Based on your observations? Liiikkke, the Holy Spirit whispers things to you, those sorts of 'observations.'

Uh oh, looky here, we got a badass over here! Only the most intellectual of us are capable of bringing out the appeal to ridicule fallacies!

The word "species" is just a label that makes things easier to categorize. Biology in action (life) doesn't really give a shit about our labels. The very definition of the word species throws up a barrier to understanding evolution because it implies demarcations where there are not necessarily any clear demarcations.

But how does the sudden inability to breed with another organism prove common ancestry evolution?

[Hammerfest]

No, try again. Why do you ridicule evolution or the BBT because you think they're a religion? Is this you subconsciously admitting religion is all blind faith and illogical?

You asked me if I thought religion was a bad thing and I replied that I don't think it saves people. Lots of people think it does and I disagree. Part of the reason why I "ridicule" the theory of evolution and the BBT is because I find the idea that they are not religious concepts disingenuous. I look at organized science in the same way I look at organized religion. The priests of Secular Humanism wear lab coats instead of robes. They have a doctrine that they adhere to and assume things to be true that haven't been proven scientifically (like the aforementioned theory of evolution).