|
Post by Admin on Apr 5, 2024 19:49:31 GMT
If "the evolutionary science of that time was not making that reductively simplistic a claim," then who proposed "the then-current theory that man evolved from ape"? Or in other words... imdb2.freeforums.net/post/6060666/threadEvolutionary science of the time wasn't making the baseline claim that man was descended from apes, period. Then who was? Who proposed "the then-current theory that man evolved from ape"?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 5, 2024 19:59:29 GMT
Evolutionary science of the time wasn't making the baseline claim that man was descended from apes, period. Then who was? Who proposed "the then-current theory that man evolved from ape"? Give it up. Really. I realize that you think you're putting forth a brilliant defensive strategy here, but it's starting to look pitiful.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 5, 2024 20:09:39 GMT
Then who was? Who proposed "the then-current theory that man evolved from ape"? Give it up. Really. I realize that you think you're putting forth a brilliant defensive strategy here, but it's starting to look pitiful. Hmm. Must be top secret.
|
|
Fr Jack
New Member
@frjack
Posts: 41
Likes: 40
|
Post by Fr Jack on Apr 5, 2024 20:24:46 GMT
Let's clear this up... Darwin never said humans are descended from apes, but that we are also apes with a common ancestor to other ape species. He wasn't the first to theorise that. That idea goes right back to ancient Greece.
Mind you we also have a common ancestor with slugs, mushrooms, lettuces, and all life on Earth. It's just a question of shared DNA and branching off.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 5, 2024 20:24:58 GMT
Give it up. Really. I realize that you think you're putting forth a brilliant defensive strategy here, but it's starting to look pitiful. Hmm. Must be top secret. Prob'ly so .
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 5, 2024 20:42:31 GMT
Prob'ly so . If, as Fr Jack said above, nobody proposed that theory, then there was no "then-current theory that man evolved from ape" to deny. Even if there was, and regardless of who did or did not propose it, it was never wrong to deny it no matter who you are or why it was denied. At least we now know who incorrectly defined the then-current theory of human relation to apes as 'being descended from apes.' It was you. You sure you don't want some tacos?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 5, 2024 20:53:02 GMT
Prob'ly so . If, as Fr Jack said above, nobody proposed that theory, then there was no "then-current theory that man evolved from ape" to deny. Even if there was, and regardless of who did or did not propose it, it was never wrong to deny it no matter who you are or why it was denied. At least we now know who incorrectly defined the then-current theory of human relation to apes as 'being descended from apes.' It was you. You sure you don't want some tacos? Keep hanging on to that. Fr. Jack didn't say 'nobody proposed that theory'. He said: Darwin never said humans are descended from apes, but that we are also apes with a common ancestor to other ape species. He wasn't the first to theorise that. That idea goes right back to ancient Greece.Ah, well...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 5, 2024 21:06:39 GMT
If, as Fr Jack said above, nobody proposed that theory, then there was no "then-current theory that man evolved from ape" to deny. Even if there was, and regardless of who did or did not propose it, it was never wrong to deny it no matter who you are or why it was denied. At least we now know who incorrectly defined the then-current theory of human relation to apes as 'being descended from apes.' It was you. You sure you don't want some tacos? Keep hanging on to that. Fr. Jack didn't say 'nobody proposed that theory'. He said: Darwin never said humans are descended from apes, but that we are also apes with a common ancestor to other ape species. He wasn't the first to theorise that. That idea goes right back to ancient Greece.Ah, well... Well, if it wasn't Darwin, the fundamentalists, evolutionary scientists, the ones who spammed our schools with the March of Progress image, or some mysteriously anonymous person or organization that you refuse to identify, then it has to be whoever said that the then-current theory was that man evolved from apes.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 5, 2024 21:26:56 GMT
Keep hanging on to that. Fr. Jack didn't say 'nobody proposed that theory'. He said: Darwin never said humans are descended from apes, but that we are also apes with a common ancestor to other ape species. He wasn't the first to theorise that. That idea goes right back to ancient Greece.Ah, well... Well, if it wasn't Darwin, the fundamentalists, evolutionary scientists, the ones who spammed our schools with the March of Progress image, or some mysteriously anonymous person or organization that you refuse to identify, then it has to be whoever said that the then-current theory was that man evolved from apes. I think you will find I identifies the culprits earlier in this thread. But I suspect that the unsophisticated and flat-out wrong views about the descent of man don't usually come from those with higher educational achievement or a regular science background.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 5, 2024 23:43:36 GMT
Well, if it wasn't Darwin, the fundamentalists, evolutionary scientists, the ones who spammed our schools with the March of Progress image, or some mysteriously anonymous person or organization that you refuse to identify, then it has to be whoever said that the then-current theory was that man evolved from apes. I think you will find I identifies the culprits earlier in this thread. But I suspect that the unsophisticated and flat-out wrong views about the descent of man don't usually come from those with higher educational achievement or a regular science background. If that was the then-current theory, then nobody misrepresented it. But the question is: Who proposed the theory that man evolved from apes?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 6, 2024 1:23:54 GMT
I think you will find I identifies the culprits earlier in this thread. But I suspect that the unsophisticated and flat-out wrong views about the descent of man don't usually come from those with higher educational achievement or a regular science background. If that was the then-current theory, then nobody misrepresented it. But the question is: Who proposed the theory that man evolved from apes? www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/scientific-insights/evolve-from-monkeys-darwins-misunderstood-theory/#:~:text=If%20we%20ask%20someone%20what,humans%20are%20descended%20from%20monkeys. Although the text goes on to clarify precisely what Darwin said, it makes plain that the popular misconception was that he'd claimed humans evolved from apes (and the misconception still persists in some quarters until today). IOW, the same popular misconception that fueled fundamentalist denunciations of the notion of ape ancestry.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 6, 2024 1:32:42 GMT
So the "then-current theory" was really just a popular misconception. What that also be the same popular misconception that fueled scientific denunciations of the notion of ape ancestry?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 6, 2024 1:36:59 GMT
So the "then-current theory" was really just a popular misconception. What that also be the same popular misconception that fueled scientific denunciations of the notion of ape ancestry? I think I pointed out that the ape ancestry theory was misconstrued by non-scientists and laypeople, and was repeated by many a fundamentalist in denial of it. Since you didn't get that the first dozen or so times I said it, I've just said it again. I don't expect it will get through this time, either.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 6, 2024 1:50:08 GMT
So the "then-current theory" was really just a popular misconception. What that also be the same popular misconception that fueled scientific denunciations of the notion of ape ancestry? I think I pointed out that the ape ancestry theory was misconstrued by non-scientists and laypeople, and was repeated by many a fundamentalist in denial of it. Since you didn't get that the first dozen or so times I said it, I've just said it again. I don't expect it will get through this time, either. Looks like our spinning wheels are finally getting some traction. It's no longer just religious fundamentalists who incorrectly defined the theory as 'being descended from monkeys', but non-scientists and laypeople as well. Which of these three groups are responsible for the March of Progress? And can you smell the tacos yet? I can.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Apr 6, 2024 9:27:50 GMT
People justifying men cheating as that's an evolutionary animal instinct, they HAVE to act on it, it's not their fault, it's just the way nature engineered them to be like all the other animals in the wild. When men ACT like pigs suddenly they're humans who are supposed to know and do better. Lets pretend that women don't justify and excuse women cheating. The pastor is an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 6, 2024 11:22:52 GMT
I think I pointed out that the ape ancestry theory was misconstrued by non-scientists and laypeople, and was repeated by many a fundamentalist in denial of it. Since you didn't get that the first dozen or so times I said it, I've just said it again. I don't expect it will get through this time, either. Looks like our spinning wheels are finally getting some traction. It's no longer just religious fundamentalists who incorrectly defined the theory as 'being descended from monkeys', but non-scientists and laypeople as well. Which of these three groups are responsible for the March of Progress? And can you smell the tacos yet? I can. Gee, I think I'd already said that as well, but if you feel covering the same ground repeatedly earns debating cookies, have at it. You don't seem to get that the point here has been the continuing incorrect interpretation of evolutionary theory by fundies. But my guess is that your religious amour-propre has been somewhat bruised by the suggestion that, overall, fundies seem to test out on a lower level of scientific literacy than, say, scientists. I'm sure you'll repeat "March of Progress" again as though that somehow proved something, somewhichaway. What it actually proves is that science discovers, notes, and corrects errors in its theorizing; something which religion notably does not. And particularly not the more hardcore and intractable fundamentalist varieties.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 6, 2024 19:46:30 GMT
I think you will find I identifies the culprits earlier in this thread. But I suspect that the unsophisticated and flat-out wrong views about the descent of man don't usually come from those with higher educational achievement or a regular science background. If that was the then-current theory, then nobody misrepresented it. But the question is: Who proposed the theory that man evolved from apes? It wasn't so much ever the theory as it being misrepresented, either in jest or in error. The theory that man evolved from apes or monkeys ( as we know them today) has never been part of evolutionary theory, as far as I am aware. Certainly Darwin never said it.. As others have said the idea either comes from the scientifically illiterate or the mischievous trying to make their point. It still persists; I had a discussion with a traditional believer a while ago who held to this discredited idea, but these days even among fundies it is hard to find a proponent of this unsophisticated notion of descent (to discredit evolution not because they believe it obviously). Most of those are more likely to argue that man is not descended or related to anything.. answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/ape-man/the-origin-of-humans/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 7, 2024 22:07:47 GMT
Looks like our spinning wheels are finally getting some traction. It's no longer just religious fundamentalists who incorrectly defined the theory as 'being descended from monkeys', but non-scientists and laypeople as well. Which of these three groups are responsible for the March of Progress? And can you smell the tacos yet? I can. Gee, I think I'd already said that as well, but if you feel covering the same ground repeatedly earns debating cookies, have at it. You don't seem to get that the point here has been the continuing incorrect interpretation of evolutionary theory by fundies. But my guess is that your religious amour-propre has been somewhat bruised by the suggestion that, overall, fundies seem to test out on a lower level of scientific literacy than, say, scientists. I'm sure you'll repeat "March of Progress" again as though that somehow proved something, somewhichaway. What it actually proves is that science discovers, notes, and corrects errors in its theorizing; something which religion notably does not. And particularly not the more hardcore and intractable fundamentalist varieties. How does the March of Progress prove that science corrected an error, and what error was corrected? Was the March of Progress the "then-current theory" or not? Because I seem to remember it being in textbooks, not Bibles.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 7, 2024 22:09:56 GMT
The theory that man evolved from apes or monkeys ( as we know them today) has never been part of evolutionary theory, as far as I am aware. Take that up with Amy. She's the one who said it was the "then-current theory." Say, do you suppose she's responsible for the March of Progress images? lol
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 8, 2024 10:58:44 GMT
Gee, I think I'd already said that as well, but if you feel covering the same ground repeatedly earns debating cookies, have at it. You don't seem to get that the point here has been the continuing incorrect interpretation of evolutionary theory by fundies. But my guess is that your religious amour-propre has been somewhat bruised by the suggestion that, overall, fundies seem to test out on a lower level of scientific literacy than, say, scientists. I'm sure you'll repeat "March of Progress" again as though that somehow proved something, somewhichaway. What it actually proves is that science discovers, notes, and corrects errors in its theorizing; something which religion notably does not. And particularly not the more hardcore and intractable fundamentalist varieties. How does the March of Progress prove that science corrected an error, and what error was corrected? Was the March of Progress the "then-current theory" or not? Because I seem to remember it being in textbooks, not Bibles. Obfuscation...not working yet again.
|
|