Big contradictions in the evolution theory

BeamMeUpScotty

Senior Veteran
Dec 15, 2004
2,384
167
55
Kanagawa, Japan
✟18,437.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Carico said:
I have yet to see one post of yours that contains any facts, Nathan. Your comments only show you cannot defend your position. Attacks only show frustration at the lack of evidence for your comments. That's the easiest thing in the world to do. As Jesus said to the paralytic; "Which is easier; to say your sins are forgiven or to say; "get up and walk?" Unless you can put your money where your mouth is, your posts are not credible.

Pot, please meet the kettle. Kettle, pot.
 
Upvote 0

JoshDanger

Active Member
Aug 9, 2005
42
7
38
✟7,722.00
Faith
Agnostic
Carico said:
I have yet to see one post of yours that contains any facts, Nathan. Your comments only show you cannot defend your position. Attacks only show frustration at the lack of evidence for your comments. That's the easiest thing in the world to do. As Jesus said to the paralytic; "Which is easier; to say your sins are forgiven or to say; "get up and walk?" Unless you can put your money where your mouth is, your posts are not credible.

I have yet to see one post of yours make a lick of sense. You seem to consciously avoid any rational conclusion and avoid all explanations to your wild notions.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Ponzio Pelato
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Carico said:
I have yet to see one post of yours that contains any facts, Nathan. Your comments only show you cannot defend your position.

How many facts have you provided?
More to the point, how many accurate facts?

What exactly do you think it takes to refute you?

Attacks only show frustration at the lack of evidence for your comments.

Not only; they show amusement at the quality of the current crop of creationists.

Although there is a touch of concern. The fact that people put their souls into ignorance is quite disturbing. It shouldn't be, I know, it's been happening for millennia.



That's the easiest thing in the world to do. As Jesus said to the paralytic; "Which is easier; to say your sins are forgiven or to say; "get up and walk?"

Chapter and verse?

Unless you can put your money where your mouth is, your posts are not credible.

I'll match any post you make, Carico, but thus far you've proven yourself to be bankrupt.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Ponzio Pelato
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟25,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Carico. Please, once again, why do you repeatedly ignore my posts, and most others that seem to be thought out? Why would you want to respond only to those who scoff, and never to those who actually attempt to answer your questions?

I've written three long posts in pages 2-4. I'd love to discuss creation and evolution with you (and maybe even learn something from you) but I'd rather not waste the time if you are only here to bicker about nothing!
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
Carico said:
I have just seen several posts where the poster admitted that an ape cannot breed with anything other than an ape. Apes are still producing apes today and always have since the beginning of recorded history. So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced? Where did he get his genes? If you say it was mutation, then where is the evidence that superior genes not present in the DNA of the parents can suddenly and spontaneously appear in their offspring? Where did they come from? To suppose that, then one can also suppose that humans can breed offspring who can fly, can he not?Where is the evidence of this? So again, where did Lucy acquire her genes? And if Lucy is fitter than her parents, then why are her parents still around today? :confused: The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.

Carico, I am really astounded that you can continue to post here and utterly fail to learn anything. Your post above is just chock foll of the same mistakes that you make every single time you post here. do you actually have any interest in learning about evolution?
 
Upvote 0

Ryal Kane

Senior Veteran
Apr 21, 2004
3,792
461
44
Hamilton
✟13,720.00
Faith
Atheist
Good old Carico.
 

Attachments

  • mortonsdarth.jpg
    mortonsdarth.jpg
    27.9 KB · Views: 332
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
Carico said:
I have just seen several posts where the poster admitted that an ape cannot breed with anything other than an ape.
Carico, we are apes. please understand that all organisms will inherit the properties of their ancestors, with some modification due to mutations and allele mixing. The rough definition of an ape is this: an mammal with forward facing eyes, trichromatic vision, no tail, short fingernails, generalized dentition, flexible fingers, often an opposable thumb, larger brain than average, generalized body plan. as you can see, this covers humans too, but we have additional modifications.
Apes are still producing apes today and always have since the beginning of recorded history.
Carico, we are apes, by the very definition of apes.
So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced?
Evolution works on a principle of successive modifications - the idea of a missing link is something of a misnomer, because there would be a gradient of organisms inbetween modern humans and the early homonids, and their common ancestor with the other great apes.
Where did he get his genes?
from their parents.
If you say it was mutation, then where is the evidence that superior genes not present in the DNA of the parents can suddenly and spontaneously appear in their offspring?
Superior is determined only by the environment; those genes which result in an increased number of offspring compared to the other members of the population. Please do not get caught up on the idea of the Great Chain of Being, which was dismissed by Darwin's Origin of Species, over a hundred years ago.
Where did they come from? To suppose that, then one can also suppose that humans can breed offspring who can fly, can he not?
no, such rapid change is called saltation. again you are ignoring that evolution is of a gradient nature.

Look at a rainbow carico, when does red become yellow? we could argue about it forever and never agree, becaues there is a gradient between red and yellow; no clear boundary. The same is true for evolution.

Where is the evidence of this? So again, where did Lucy acquire her genes? And if Lucy is fitter than her parents, then why are her parents still around today? :confused:
Lucy would have been fitter on the plains, whereas her cousins (not her parents) were fitter in the forest. Think about it carico, evolution will happen differently to different groups in different environments. this kind of thing has been observed.
The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.
you have isolated nothing but your own misconceptions as to what evolution is and how it works. I am a bit disappointed really, since we have told you these things countless times.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Ponzio Pelato
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
Deamiter said:
Carico. Please, once again, why do you repeatedly ignore my posts, and most others that seem to be thought out? Why would you want to respond only to those who scoff, and never to those who actually attempt to answer your questions?

I've written three long posts in pages 2-4. I'd love to discuss creation and evolution with you (and maybe even learn something from you) but I'd rather not waste the time if you are only here to bicker about nothing!

You have to ask why she ignores your posts? Isn´t it obvious?

Her main argument, used again and again, is that Evolution is stupid and only propagated by evil Atheists who want to deny God. If she had to admit that there were Christians who agree with the Theory of Evolution, she would either have to accuse you of not being a Christian (which would get her banned again) or admit that her main point is false.

I have never seen Carico to admit being wrong... so all she has left is to ignore any post that would refute her points, answer her questions or go against her convictions.

Of course, constantly having the meaningful refutations of her posts ignored galls the other posters, and so a rather large amount of sarcasm and mocking is always part of Carico´s threads. It seems to be inevitable - and of course these posts are the ones that Carico hooks onto: "Oh, all you have is attacks and slander - that proves you are wrong!" Which again infuriates the posters who can point to their well-written posts that do NOT contain attacks and slander.

So what is left? I have lost any hope to have a meaningful debate with Carico. I have tried to ignore her before, but my believe in the good in humanity has turned me around. I´ll try again.

... If you don´t change your ways, and understand what communication means, you don´t deserve being answered.

Good bye, Madam!
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Ponzio Pelato
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
J

Jet Black

Guest
Carico said:
I'm confused because evolutionists contradict themselves!
no, everything said so far has been correct. The problem is that I don't think you are understanding the points that are being put to you. please try to be a little more Christ like and humble.
2 posters already told me that a species cannot produce offspring with another species. So which is it? :scratch:
That is the basic definition of a species, that it cannot breed with another species. however this is often slightly grey, because speciation is a continuum. take horses and donkeys for example, the are regarded as different species, because they cannot breed to produce fertile offspring (though they can produce mules, which are sterile) - but just very occasionally, their offspring can be fertile.
Where is this fertilized egg which you claim is a result of a human and another animal?
There is none, this I am afraid is a strawman of evolution. Nobody is suggesting that humans were formed as a result of hybridization.
I was told in my biology classes that this is not possible. So apparently, all scientists are confused about this!
no, it is you who is confused, ebcause you are misunderstanding the species concepts, and the nature of biology.
So since the premise of evolution can't even be proven, then how can the rest of the theory even be viable? :confused: I would imagine that if a human could produce a fertilized egg with an animal that the whole world would hear about it. And until it can be proven that this is even possible, then the evolution theory is just a theory and not scientifically provable.
you are only talking about breeding of humans, not the theory of evolution here. Please Carico, please stop pretending that you understand it all and then demonstrating that you don't. please learn the following logical fallacy, which you commit alomst every time you post on this subject:

Strawman
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
56
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟20,947.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Carico - once again.

Do you accept that French evolved from Latin?

I'm assuming you do, because there isn't a linguist or philologist alive who wouldn't agree that it did.

Was there a Latin speaker whose children spoke French? No, Latin speakers' children always spoke Latin, and French speakers' children always speak French, n'est-ce pas?

If you were to be able to hear the language spoken by a Latinised Gaul of 350AD, and all the generations after him right up to Pierre in Brittany today, you would not be able to find a point where the language changed. Each generation's language would be virtually identical to that before it. Each would speak effectively the language of their parents.

And yet if you compare the Latin of 350AD side by side with the French of today, they are totally different, mutually incomprehensible languages.

Example:

Latin: Amo caseum
French: J'aime le fromage

This is an analogy. Latin speakers are analogous to our ape-like ancestors of five million years ago, and French speakers are analogous to modern humans. Do you get the point? At no point does the development of French from Latin require:

(a) A Latin speaker having children with someone speaking a different language
(b) A Latin speaker having children who speak a different language

Similarly, evolution does not require

(a) A species breeding with a different species
(b) A species giving birth to a different species

Since you seem to struggle with analogies, I've used boldand italics to help you identify the analogous elements.

Now are you finally going to abandon these ridiculous straw-man based objections? I do not see how you can hold onto them and claim any kind of honesty.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
J

Jet Black

Guest
rzuvich said:
Whoa, talk about apostacy! I have a good understanding of evolutionism as a former evolutionst/athiest.
interesting, we will test that against the evidence:
It is not a lack of understanding I suffer from, it is just a fact that evolutionism is false, not science, not scientific and it is religious (%100). It is not based upon nothing but lies, ad hominem attacks on Christians, scientists and science.
as I glance through the pages of Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, Maynard Smith's "The Theory of evolution" and my other assorted textbooks, not once do I see an ad hominem, I see no lies and so on. where are they all?
Even IF people could mix with apes
error #1 people are by definition apes.
does not show origins from them or any other ape-like anything. It proves nothing in regards to any supposed evolutionary relationship. A common DESIGNER is the Bible's answer, not common descent. Screwdrivers may be phillips or flat; it does not follow that one evolved into another. Lug nuts from a Chevy can be put onto other cars....they did not evolve into other cars.
error #2 strawman comaprison.
You have to RE-INTERPRET the Bible in light of the claims of men to arrive at Evolutionism from the Bible. It is not in there, except as prophecied as a false religion of the last days. It says "evening and morning were the ____day", for crying out loud!
there are a number of interpretations
Any CHRISTIAN who defends Darwinism lacks knowledge of both science, Evolutionism and the Bible-and wholesale rejects what God wrote concerning origins.
error #3, it shows that Christian knows what they are talking about.
No, Genesis is not open to interpretation because of what men say (no matter HOW MANY say it). God knows how to communicate-it is the rejector who does not know how to listen.
you know that it could be you who does not know how to listen?
True scientists
No True Scotsman fallacy.
can not accept the fable and religion of evolution, despite how they claim Creationists are not true scientists. They cannot even practice real science ***in regards to origins***, since they are biased religious nuts.
ipse dixiet. please back up your statements.
No Christians should EVER defend such a deadly, murderous religion as Darwiniam. Ever. Ugh...it is sickening.

True science knows nothing of evolutionism.



2 Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

"Millions of years" is a fable.
hold on, which sciences here are "true sciences"? In your claim that the universe is a mere 6000 or so years old, you are in one sentence claiming that geology, paleontology, chemistry, cosmology, relativity, optics, nuclear physics, stellar mechanics, quantum mechanics and a whole bunch of other parts of science are wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Lord Emsworth

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.
Oct 10, 2004
51,745
421
Through the cables and the underground ...
✟61,459.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Carico said:
And who said that human beings are a "subcategory of apes"? A man with a Ph.D.? Sorry, but there are other men with Ph.D's who disagree with them. So who's right? Just a guess? Absolutely. ;)


Evolutionary theory says this. And if you want to point out a contradiction, and a big one no less, in the theory then you should actually point it out in the theory.

And not between your Straw Man theory and the theory itself. Cheers

 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
Carico said:
And who said that human beings are a "subcategory of apes"? A man with a Ph.D.? Sorry, but there are other men with Ph.D's who disagree with them. So who's right? Just a guess? Absolutely. ;)

Lord Emsworth said:
Evolutionary theory says this. And if you want to point out a contradiction, and a big one no less, in the theory then you should actually point it out in the theory.

And not between your Straw Man theory and the theory itself. Cheers

Just to correct both of you. Firstly Emsworth is not really correct in that Evolutionary theory says this. Evolutionary theory does not define whether an organism is one thing or another. Secondly, there is no individual who just says "humans are a subcategory of ape" humans are a subcategory of ape, because the definition of ape includes humans.

I double that Carico would deny that she is a vertebrate, if she has a spine. I doubt that she would deny that she is a mammal: Mammals additionally have warm blood, fur and the females lactate (that is produce milk) and give birth to live young. I doubt she would deny that she has forward facing eyes, a generalised dentition (as opposed to a dentition specialized for eating just meat or plants) and has flexible digits. That would make her a primate. I doubt that she would deny that she has a larger than average brain, no tail, short fingernails and trichromatic vision. That would make her an ape. I doubt that in addition to these features she would deny that she is suited to bipedality (though admittedly not as well as Homo erectus was) has an exceptionally large brain cavity, well developed Broca's region, a chin, fully opposable thumb and a foramen magnum positioned to the front rather than the back of the skull. That makes her human.
 
Upvote 0

Lord Emsworth

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.
Oct 10, 2004
51,745
421
Through the cables and the underground ...
✟61,459.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Jet Black said:
Just to correct both of you. Firstly Emsworth is not really correct in that Evolutionary theory says this. Evolutionary theory does not define whether an organism is one thing or another. Secondly, there is no individual who just says "humans are a subcategory of ape" humans are a subcategory of ape, because the definition of ape includes humans.


That only makes it worse. ETA: But it would propbably be denied by Creationists and Creationism.

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums