Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
The story of evolution can be demonstrated by this simple analogy: hypothetical: If dogs once ruled the world, then it would be a logical assumption that humans could have come from dogs. Here's how it could have happened:
The genes of dogs simply changed (mutated) into the genes of humans. Since mutations exist in reality, then my claim is true. It would have to have taken hundreds of thousands of years for that to happen so humans are hundreds of thousands of years old. So the "What if" has turned to "it is" simply because the author has thought through his story logically.
That's exactly how the story of evolution was concocted. From an imaginary premise, Darwin concocted a story that could make his premise sound believable as every sciencie fiction writer does. And since his premise is so impossible, then his story is as voluminous as "Lord of the Rings" in a vain attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. But since the premise is hypothetical (imaginary) then no matter how logically and well thought through the conclusion is, the conclusion can only be as hypothetical (imaginary) as the premise is.
And that's what people, including scientists don't understand.
We could easily test your scenario by examining whether dog and human DNA is more similar to each other than either is to other animal DNA. After all, if dogs and humans share a common ancestor to the exclusion of all other animals, then their DNA should reflect that similarity. Likewise, the details of our skeletons should be most similar as well.
It turns out that such a scenario cannot be substantiated because human DNA and phenotype is most similar to that of a chimp. Thus, your idea that dogs gave rise to humans is falsified by science and your analogy is moot.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
We could easily test your scenario by examining whether dog and human DNA is more similar to each other than either is to other animal DNA. After all, if dogs and humans share a common ancestor to the exclusion of all other animals, then their DNA should reflect that similarity. Likewise, the details of our skeletons should be most similar as well.
It turns out that such a scenario cannot be substantiated because human DNA and phenotype is most similar to that of a chimp. Thus, your idea that dogs gave rise to humans is falsified by science and your analogy is moot.
Sorry but "if's" are hypotheticals which are imaginary scenarios that don't exist in the real world. If they did exist in the real world, they wouldn't be "if's'. "If's" are what science fiction is based on.
Secondly, evolutionary scientists are so intent on duping the world that animals can turn into people, then they neglect the obvious fact that most animals and humans have to have similar DNA because in order to live in the environment that God created, land animals and humans have to be able to; eat, breathe, reproduce themselves, drink water and protect themselves to survive. So they both have to have the following:
1) A brain
2) a heart
3) A respiratory system
4) Lungs
5) A circulatory system
6) A reproductive system
7) Limbs
8) eyes, ears, a nose and a mouth
9) Skin
10) A digestive system
And on and on and on. So of course there will be similar traits between animals and humans! So claiming that similar traits between animals and humans means one can breed the other is a perfect example of jumping to the wrong conclusion based on an observation which scientists do all the time.
And yet another poster with no understanding of evolution
__________________ Funny thing about tracking.
Most would fear seeing this -> To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
than seeing this -> To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Isaiah 8:12-13 (NIV) "Do not call conspiracy everything that these people call conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it. The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread."
that's because evolutionary scientists don't even understand evolution since it's a fairy tale. That's why there are zero accounts of transitional species by anyone in history. So the criteria for science is making up stories that can't be verified by any outside witnesses of events that don't happen in reality. That's the exact definition of a delusion. Point made.
Sorry but "if's" are hypotheticals which are imaginary scenarios that don't exist in the real world. If they did exist in the real world, they wouldn't be "if's'. "If's" are what science fiction is based on.
If it's the term "if" you have a problem with, then you should turn off your computer and go live in a cave somewhere because ALL of science takes the form of "IF x is true, then prediction y should be observed." This is called hypothesis testing. It's the methodology of science. And someone who rejects science yet revels in the fruits of its labor is a hypocrite.
Secondly, evolutionary scientists are so intent on duping the world that animals can turn into people, then they neglect the obvious fact that most animals and humans have to have similar DNA because in order to live in the environment that God created, land animals and humans have to be able to; eat, breathe, reproduce themselves, drink water and protect themselves to survive. So they both have to have the following:
1) A brain
2) a heart
3) A respiratory system
4) Lungs
5) A circulatory system
6) A reproductive system
7) Limbs
8) eyes, ears, a nose and a mouth
9) Skin
10) A digestive system
And on and on and on. So of course there will be similar traits between animals and humans! So claiming that similar traits between animals and humans means one can breed the other is a perfect example of jumping to the wrong conclusion based on an observation which scientists do all the time.
Ahhh... but evolution isn't inferred based only on the similarity of organisms, but on the distribution of similarity and differences among organisms. This is what we mean when we talk about the nested hierarchy of life (e.g., all animals with placentas are mammals but not all mammals have placentas, all mammals have vertebrae but not all vertebrates are mammals, all vertebrates are bilaterally symmetrical but not all bilaterians are vertebrates, etc.). Only evolution explains this pattern. Creation ex nihilo does not. You can learn about the details here:
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Again, you're jumping to the wrong conclusion based on an observation. How do you know that each animal wasn't created that way? You don't. So you jump to the conclusion that similarities between animals and humans means one can breed the other as descendants when that doesn't happen in reality.
So again, the criteria for claiming that evolution is a fact is making up stories that no one in history can verify of events that don't happen in reality. Again, that's the exact definition of a delusion.
Again, you're jumping to the wrong conclusion based on an observation. How do you know that each animal wasn't created that way? You don't. So you jump to the conclusion that similarities between animals and humans means one can breed the other as descendants when that doesn't happen in reality.
So again, the criteria for claiming that evolution is a fact is making up stories that no one in history can verify of events that don't happen in reality. Again, that's the exact definition of a delusion.
Perhaps you can use creationism to explain the pattern I just described, then. Why do all animals with hair have vertebrae, but not all animals with vertebrae have hair? Why do all animals with vertebrae have bilateral symmetry, but not all bilaterally symmetrical animals have vertebrae? Why do all animals with bilateral symmetry have organized tissues, but not all animals with organized tissues have bilateral symmetry? How do you account for such a branching hierarchy in the pattern of life? What process accounts for this pattern?
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Perhaps you can use creationism to explain the pattern I just described, then. Why do all animals with hair have vertebrae, but not all animals with vertebrae have hair? Why do all animals with vertebrae have bilateral symmetry, but not all bilaterally symmetrical animals have vertebrae? Why do all animals with bilateral symmetry have organized tissues, but not all animals with organized tissues have bilateral symmetry? How do you account for such a branching hierarchy in the pattern of life? What process accounts for this pattern?
The answer is very simple; because God created animals each to their own kind. And all animals only reproduce themselves which is why the term is "reproduction", not producing other animals. That's exactly how the world works. So reality confirms the bible and it does not confirm evolution.
It would have to have taken hundreds of thousands of years for that to happen so humans are hundreds of thousands of years old. 
So the "What if" has turned to "it is" simply because the author has thought through his story logically.
Linear Mode
