The Darwin Delusion

peace4ever · #1 3rd June 2009, 01:02 AM

Science fiction is about what could happen in reality, science is about what does happen in reality. All science fiction books and movies are written from a "what if?" which is called a hypothetical, or hypothesis (something that doesn't happen in reality). Examples are;

1)"What if aliens once ruled the world? How would that happen?
2) "What if aliens exist and war between each other?" Thus the movie "Star Wars"

The story of evolution is no exception. "What if humans came from monkeys or some other fictitious animal? How could that happen?" Every fiction writer tries to make his story believable so he bases his story on some aspect of reality and makes sure he dots every "i" and crosses every "t" so his story his consistent within his premise. Only there are so many holes in the story of evolution that it looks like the author fell asleep during his thought process. So the story of evolution beings like this:

"Once upon a time 500,000 years ago, no, 600,000 years ago, no 750,000 years ago...I'll forget the setting and go on. Once upon a long time ago an ape, no a monkey, no a half-human, half monkey...I'll skip that part too.

"Once upon a long time ago an ancestor common to a monkey, no a human, no some extinct lower primate mated with a...human, no a monkey..oh well I'll skip that part too.

Needless to say, a story that hasn't started out well can't end well either. A badly written fiction story certainly can't make a good non-fiction story. When an author can't even describe his main characters, then he certainly can't know what kind of descendants they can produce!

But what makes the story of evolution a delusion, is that Darwin actually believed his characters were real! It's bad enough when an author believes that the characters he conjures up in his imaginations are real, but when he doesn't even know who his main characters are, then he is even more delusional!

Nevertheless, this badly written fiction story has been accepted as true in the real world.

Why? Because the secular world thinks that anyone with a degree must be right! So anything scientists say is blindly accepted by the world. Few people even question whether or not evolution even makes sense much less why it's impossible. Darwin simply made up this story in a desperate attempt to come up with an alternative to the biblical account of creation.

But the fact of the matter is, animals don't carry human DNA any more than humans carry animal DNA. So goats, turkeys, monkeys, zebras, skunks squirrels or fictitious animals can no more breed human descendants than humans can breed goats, monkeys, squirrels, zebras as descendants either whether over a gazillion years or 9 months. All one has to know is the simple birds and bees to know why.

So you can be rest assured, folks, that your descendants will be humans, not another species, least of all, a species superior to humans.

Thus, the story of evolution is not only an accepted myth, it's the biggest hoax of the last 2 centuries.

Dark_Lite · #2 3rd June 2009, 01:12 AM

Alrighty.... where to start?

Humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor. This is the scientific consensus. You seem to be implying that there is confusion in this regard in the field. There is not.

Dating is only so accurate. However, it is pretty accurate given that we are working on a timeline of millions of years. Apparently it must go down to exactly to the day and time to be true?

Your bolded statement also shows a common misconception about evolution. Evolution is a tree model, not whatever model you seem to have in your mind. squirrels don't give birth to zebras because that's not how evolution works. All change is gradual from a common ancestor.

You make it sound like evolution was just randomly thought up. This is not the case. It is the best explanation given the physical evidence. You also seem to think that no one questions it. The reason evolution is such a solid theory is because scientists question it all the time. If they were able to falsify evolution, how famous do you think they'd be and how much money do you think they'd get? That's right. A lot. There's a reason it hasn't happened yet after 150+ years. There's been a lot of new discoveries and evidence that changes the theory a bit but makes it even stronger. Without this constant attempt to falsify, the theory would stagnate and our information would be faulty.

peace4ever · #3 3rd June 2009, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by Dark_Lite

Alrighty.... where to start?

Humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor. This is the scientific consensus. You seem to be implying that there is confusion in this regard in the field. There is not.

Dating is only so accurate. However, it is pretty accurate given that we are working on a timeline of millions of years. Apparently it must go down to exactly to the day and time to be true?

Your bolded statement also shows a common misconception about evolution. Evolution is a tree model, not whatever model you seem to have in your mind. squirrels don't give birth to zebras because that's not how evolution works. All change is gradual from a common ancestor.

it was also once the consensus of scientists that bleeding people can cure diseases.

So a whole scientific community can absolutely be wrong.

But you confirm my point that people simply blindly believe what the majority believes. And that's how myths become popular. Thus, Scientists can make up any story they want and it will be automatically be believed by the public because people believe their credentials, even when they can't provide facts.

But sorry, since Darwin didn't describe his main characters, then he has no clue what the origin of man is. If evolution were a fact, then it would be no problem to describe the common ancestor. But he's as imaginary as the Flying Spaghetti monster.

Dark_Lite · #4 3rd June 2009, 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by peace4ever

it was also once the consensus of scientists that bleeding people can cure diseases. So a whole scientific community can absolutely be wrong.

But you confirm my point that people simply blindly believe what the majority believes. And that's how myths become popular. Thus, Scientists can make up any story they want and it will be automatically be believed by the public because people believe their credentials, even when they can't provide facts.

But sorry, since Darwin didn't describe his main characters, then he has no clue what the origin of man is. If evolution were a fact, then it would be no problem to describe the common ancestor. But he's as imaginary as the Flying Spaghetti monster.

Um, perhaps you should look up the many, many transitional fossils out there?

peace4ever · #5 3rd June 2009, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by Dark_Lite

Um, perhaps you should look up the many, many transitional fossils out there?

Looking at fossils is as subjective as speculating what shapes leaves on a tree form. Thus, the old adage, "archeologists always find what they're looking for" is true because they make the shapes on fossil be whatever they imagine them to be. So sorry, but the imagination is not evidence. So try again.

Mallon · #6 3rd June 2009, 01:37 AM

You have a very poor and outdated understanding of evolution, peace4ever. To learn about what evolution really is, check out:
Understanding Evolution

peace4ever · #7 3rd June 2009, 01:49 AM

[quote=Mallon;51875688]You have a very poor and outdated understanding of evolution, peace4ever. To learn about what evolution really is, check out:

Sorry friend, but like everyone else, I grew up with the myth of evolution ever since childhood. So i know a lot more about it than scientists do because I know why animals can't turn into people or breed people whether over a gazillion years or 9 months and scientists don't. Their whole story is a concoction of their imagination by trying to figure out how an animal could turn into a human. Animals don't breed human descendants in reality and there are zero accounts of any ancient people of their vine swinging ancestors.

One would think that the first speaking human(s) would have had marvelous tales about their non-speaking parents, grandparents, etc, especially since scientists claim that their ancestors lived for a much longer time than humans have lived on earth! yet there are exactly zero accounts of these creatures. I wonder why that is.

The answer is very simple; because transitional species are a figment of the imaginations of modern-day scientists and not very good ones at that.

So evolution can't be verified historically any more than it can be verified biologically.

gluadys · #8 3rd June 2009, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by peace4ever

But sorry, since Darwin didn't describe his main characters, then he has no clue what the origin of man is.

Darwin did describe his main characters. They are Variation, Inheritance and Natural Selection. And Darwin correctly predicted that the earliest human fossils would be found in Africa (not in the Middle East as had been presumed from Bible stories.) Why? Because he correctly surmised that humans shared a common ancestor with the African apes.

peace4ever · #9 3rd June 2009, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by gluadys

Darwin did describe his main characters. They are Variation, Inheritance and Natural Selection. And Darwin correctly predicted that the earliest human fossils would be found in Africa (not in the Middle East as had been presumed from Bible stories.) Why? Because he correctly surmised that humans shared a common ancestor with the African apes.

Oh really? Then please describe the common ancestor (s), how many there were, what they looked like, where they lived, when they lived, etc. Then I'll ask people on other forums to describe the common ancestors and see if your stories agree. then we'll see if you are using facts or your imagination for your claims.

Mallon · #10 3rd June 2009, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by peace4ever

Sorry friend, but like everyone else, I grew up with the myth of evolution ever since childhood. So i know a lot more about it than scientists do because I know why animals can't turn into people or breed people whether over a gazillion years or 9 months and scientists don't.

Isn't it the height of hypocrisy to accuse scientists of being pompous for questioning the historicity of the biblical creation accounts, while at the same time insisting you know more than an entire field of people dedicated to studying God's creation?

Their whole story is a concoction of their imagination by trying to figure out how an animal could turn into a human. Animals don't breed human descendants in reality and there are zero accounts of any ancient people of their vine swinging ancestors.

The fossils disagree:

One would think that the first speaking human(s) would have had marvelous tales about their non-speaking parents, grandparents, etc, especially since scientists claim that their ancestors lived for a much longer time than humans have lived on earth! yet there are exactly zero accounts of these creatures. I wonder why that is. The answer is very simple; because transitional species are a figment of the imaginations of modern-day scientists and not very good ones at that. So evolution can't be verified historically any more than it can be verified biologically.