Humanists of Greater Portland Meetup Message Board › Creationist vs. an atheist 6th grader

Creationist vs. an atheist 6th grader

Bernie D.
BernieDehler
Hillsboro, OR
Post #: 1,439
Gavin wrote:
"Further I did not use the terminology of "non-human animal" instead I said a being who did not have all of the attributes of what we call human."

This is where you went wrong, scientifically speaking. There is no such thing (no scientific definition) as "human attributes." If you understand that humans emerged over time and within a population, according to evolutionary theory, then you'd understand there is no such thing as a "first" anything in any species.

For more info, you might want to read this about "ring species"
http://tinyurl.com/r5...­

It shows how a species changes over geographical locations, even in our modern day, and there is no clear break amongst species (except at the head and tail of the ring, but gradually changes in-between). The same happened with humans as humans gradually emerged over time and within populations. Children always look similar to their parents when taking a snapshot over a few generations... you need many hundreds or thousands of generations to see macro changes.

As Dawkins wrote, I think (from memory) he said if you look back over your grandfathers, the guy who is 198,000,000 generations back, he looks like a ...
.
.
.
.
.
fish!

Gavin wrote:
"Regarding your remark of "... there is no set definition of what a human is ...", I agree with that but just as that does not negate the existence of humans it also does not negate that some individual in the past was the first one to be 100.000% human."

Scientifically, there's no such thing as 100% human, or 99% human, etc.
Bernie D.
BernieDehler
Hillsboro, OR
Post #: 1,440
Funny- the Hovind camp tries to recover from the 6th grader conflict video that went viral. Their response, out of context of course:
http://www.youtube.co...­
Bernie D.
BernieDehler
Hillsboro, OR
Post #: 1,441
Another funny debate excerpt:

Eric Hovind thinks a dead corpse won't bleed if it is cut:
http://www.youtube.co...­


Gavin
Atheistic-ExJW
Beaverton, OR
Post #: 2,139
I realize that there no clear distinction in some cases when a population evolves from one species into another and I know about ring species, but I disagree with Bernie that new species lack a first member of their species. I also believe that in most cases new species which are very different from their ancestors come about in a puntuated equilibrium manner (as theorized by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldrige) instead of in the highly gradualistic manner believed in by Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins. See the Wikipedia article called Punctuated equilibrium for more information. Punctuated equilibrium best fits the fossil record and laboratory experiments. However I don't wish to argue this matter further with Bernie, since I realize it would accomplish nothing. For example Bernie has even said (in other discussions) that one of his philosophical views is that he is not the same person named Bernie (in regards to identity) who existed 20 years ago, 5 days ago, or even one minute ago (because his body and mind has undergone changes during those times). Yet he contradicts himself when he says he did and said specific things a minute ago, days ago, and years ago (like when he said he used to be a Christian). By saying he did something and thought something in the past, he admits that he has the same identity of the one who did and thought those things in the past. Likewise if he is not the same person (in regards to identity) who existed months ago, then he has no valid claim to the driver's licence and the home he possesses [since according to him the person(s) who obtained those things was (or were) a different person (or different people) than the Bernie of this moment]. He is thus logically inconsistent in those matters.
Gavin
Atheistic-ExJW
Beaverton, OR
Post #: 2,140
Another funny debate excerpt:

Eric Hovind thinks a dead corpse won't bleed if it is cut:
http://www.youtube.co...­


It depends how dead the corpse is (death is a process) and how long it has been dead. Over time the blood will congeal (if I am not mistaken).
Bernie D.
BernieDehler
Hillsboro, OR
Post #: 1,443
Gavin said:
"It depends how dead the corpse is (death is a process) and how long it has been dead."

Very true. But Hovind said a corpse won't bleed simply because there's no heartbeat, which is not true. More info:
http://askville.amazo...­

Excerpt:
Gravity can do what the heart doesn't
After you die, your body can be seen as a big bag of blood. Initially, that bag is under some pressure, a bit less than the diastolic pressure (the pressure between heartbeats). So if you cut into an artery a little after death you may get some squirting, rather than just leaking. It won’t be much, since diastolic pressure isn’t that much over the pressure of the air, and the instant you make an incision that pressure is released.

And it only lasts for about half an hour; after that, the muscles relax completely, letting the blood vessels expand. The blood basically leaks down into the lowest parts of the body. Make an incision where the blood has pooled, and it will leak out. That’s why you hang meat by the feet after slitting the throat, to allow the blood to drain out. A mortician usually helps this out with pressurized embalming fluid.

After a few days, the blood vessels themselves will decompose along with the rest of the body. If the blood hasn't leaked out already it joins the other bodily fluids and liquid byproducts of decomposition.

So a body can bleed for a while, though in a different way from a body pressurized by the heart.

Bernie D.
BernieDehler
Hillsboro, OR
Post #: 1,444
Funny YouTube comment: "If someone tells you they see demons, then tell them to stop taking drugs. If they aren't on drugs, then tell them to see a doctor to get a drug prescription."
Bernie D.
BernieDehler
Hillsboro, OR
Post #: 1,445
Here's another funny video excerpt (from the recent debate at Portland State University) where young earth creationist Eric Hovind tries to say that brain chemistry is akin to fizzy soda pop:

"Eric Hovind says brain chemistry is like fizzy soda pop (debate excerpt)"
http://youtu.be/NnIJl...­


Gavin
Atheistic-ExJW
Beaverton, OR
Post #: 2,143
I realize that there no clear distinction in some cases when a population evolves from one species into another and I know about ring species, but I disagree with Bernie that new species lack a first member of their species. I also believe that in most cases new species which are very different from their ancestors come about in a puntuated equilibrium manner (as theorized by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldrige) instead of in the highly gradualistic manner believed in by Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins. See the Wikipedia article called Punctuated equilibrium for more information. Punctuated equilibrium best fits the fossil record and laboratory experiments. However I don't wish to argue this matter further with Bernie, since I realize it would accomplish nothing. For example Bernie has even said (in other discussions) that one of his philosophical views is that he is not the same person named Bernie (in regards to identity) who existed 20 years ago, 5 days ago, or even one minute ago (because his body and mind has undergone changes during those times). Yet he contradicts himself when he says he did and said specific things a minute ago, days ago, and years ago (like when he said he used to be a Christian). By saying he did something and thought something in the past, he admits that he has the same identity of the one who did and thought those things in the past. Likewise if he is not the same person (in regards to identity) who existed months ago, then he has no valid claim to the driver's licence and the home he possesses [since according to him the person(s) who obtained those things was (or were) a different person (or different people) than the Bernie of this moment]. He is thus logically inconsistent in those matters.

The following comment is an attempt to argue, it simply is a quote relevant to what I said above.

The web page at Journey of Man describes a PBS science 2-hour show which will air tonight (2012-DEC-12) which first aired on Jan. 21, 2003. The description of the show on the web site says "Summary: The genetic and archaeological evidence that seems to indicate that the human race began with a single individual who lived 60,000 years ago." Notice the words "... the human race began with a single individual ...". I intend to record that show, especially since I don't know if I already have a recording of it from 2003.
Bernie D.
BernieDehler
Hillsboro, OR
Post #: 1,447
Really, humanity started with a single man? I wonder what he mated with. So some non-human animal gave birth to the first human animal... I wonder if that was written by a Christian. Evidence for that? Yes, that would be news!

Update: Just did some quick internet research. I think this is confusing "first human" with "most common recent ancestor" of modern humans living today. Otherwise known as y-chromosomal Adam. These two things are getting confused, and are not the same. Y-chromosomal Adam wasn't the first human; he's the most common recent ancestor of all males living today. All other male ancestral lines died out. There's another ancestral line for women with mitochondrial Eve, from a different time.
Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy