If I Evolved From Slime, Why Can't I Remember What I Ate For Breakfast This Morning?

[BVZ]

I like this one.

1) YEC's dont think evolution exist.
2) YEC's fight against evolution.
3) Thus, YEC's fight against something that (they beleive) does not exist.
4) YEC's are crazy.

 

[Split Rock]

But it used to be the theory that explained life the universe and the whole of creation, you know that.

Can you cite any evidence to back this up, or should we assume this is yet another unsubstantiated assertion that you use to muddy the water.

The neo-Darwinian establishment severed its once intimate relationship with so called abiogenesis citing irreconcilable differences fearing that the potency of its flagship theory would be ridiculed similarly.

Absolute nonsense. Show me where in On the Origins of Species Darwin describes abiogenesis.

 

[Tiberius]

This thread is a parody of the thread "Survival is a conscious choice, but if I have evolved why don't I remember it?"

You have fallen victim to Poe's Law, which states that it is impossible to tell the difference between a real Creationist and a parody of one.

Here are some reps for you in any case

Proof that creationists are parodies of themselves?

 

[Najdorf]

but populations evolve not individuals.
look back in your family line, somewhere your ancestors ceased being the nationality you are. you go back far enough and they cease being members of a nation state at all, but identify themselves by language or culture. go back further and that language and culture changes.

people don't find it odd that their ancestors didn't speak english and weren't americans. the only thing passing between the generations is a bit of DNA, so what?

Where in your family history do you trace your ancestory down to an ape? Can anyone do this? In fact, humanity can be only historically traced to other humans. The hominid thing is all a hoax like Bigfoot. You got to know this by now.

I also have a very important point to share with you on the subject of breeding and human population. I saw a few shows that exclaimed that Mexico was populated in 8000B.C. In fact, there were nations from all over the world that were dated at this point in time. But lets just put our focus on the dating of Mexican population. If Mexicans have been farming since 8000 B.C. there should have been a population problem so big that the entire world be over crowed with Mexicans with no standing room left! Wars and plagues all included here, there is not a large enough population or enough dead found to support the evolutionary dating of the nations. It's all based on wild speculations.

 

[truth above all else]

Can you cite any evidence to back this up, or should we assume this is yet another unsubstantiated assertion that you use to muddy the water.

Back what up,you obviously conveniently ignore your evolutionary forefathers, evolutionary belief has always been associated with whimsical opinions and bizarre axioms as J Huxley affirmed " All aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values - indeed that all reality is a single process of evolution, Darwin opened the passage leading to a new psychosocial level- an evolution centred organisation of thought and belief."

 

[pantsman52]

If Mexicans have been farming since 8000 B.C. there should have been a population problem so big that the entire world be over crowed with Mexicans with no standing room left! Wars and plagues all included here, there is not a large enough population or enough dead found to support the evolutionary dating of the nations. It's all based on wild speculations.

Humans do not exponentially multiply, espescially when there are finite resources in the environment. You will notice how, before the Industrial Revolution, the human population increased very gradually. You can only support so many people in a population using general farming techniques. It was only until we were able to grow food in unimaginable quantities using machines and our medicine started to improve by leaps and bounds that we saw the huge population explosion which we are still seeing today.

 

[pantsman52]

Can you cite any evidence to back this up, or should we assume this is yet another unsubstantiated assertion that you use to muddy the water.

Back what up,you obviously conveniently ignore your evolutionary forefathers, evolutionary belief has always been associated with whimsical opinions and bizarre axioms as J Huxley affirmed " All aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values - indeed that all reality is a single process of evolution, Darwin opened the passage leading to a new psychosocial level- an evolution centred organisation of thought and belief."

That is not biological evolution, that is more of a general defenition of the word evolution. The Theory of Evolution, as introduced by Darwin, deals only with biology.

 

[truth above all else]

That is not biological evolution, that is more of a general defenition of the word evolution. The Theory of Evolution, as introduced by Darwin, deals only with biology.

the general definition is precisely what general humanity accepts as its meaning

 

[Pete Harcoff]

the general definition is precisely what general humanity accepts as its meaning

And this is relevant to the scientific theory of evolution how exactly?

 

[jamie4418]

I have a question for evos. I've asked this a few times before. But I really have a hard time with the answer.

Evos say that man came from amoeba and apes and fish. Right? Evos have said to me that humans are actually no more advanced or no less advanced than these things. Isn't it safe to say then that we are more advanced than these things judging by our vast ability to create?

 

[ReverendDG]

I have a question for evos. I've asked this a few times before. But I really have a hard time with the answer.

Evos say that man came from amoeba and apes and fish. Right? Evos have said to me that humans are actually no more advanced or no less advanced than these things. Isn't it safe to say then that we are more advanced than these things judging by our vast ability to create?

Hmm does that mean you didn't like the answers given or the answers were too confusing?

my answer is this, we arn't anymore advanced that any other life form, we are different in how we live in our enviriment. we may think we somehow have control over how we live and work and such, but look at how viruses still make us sick and animals can kill a human.
the truth is our belief that we have surpassed other lifeforms is pure arrogance on our part, in fact there are a lot of animals that can survive better than any human ever could in harsher enviriments


humans are no better or worse than any other animal, we just seem well impressed by our own abilties in comparision to other animals, when in fact they don't need them so why would they bother? we do since we have a different system and arn't built like some of the other animals are

 

[Najdorf]

Humans do not exponentially multiply, espescially when there are finite resources in the environment. You will notice how, before the Industrial Revolution, the human population increased very gradually. You can only support so many people in a population using general farming techniques. It was only until we were able to grow food in unimaginable quantities using machines and our medicine started to improve by leaps and bounds that we saw the huge population explosion which we are still seeing today.

This is historically unaccurate. Anyone can go through any history they find and as far back as written history takes and you'll find out that population explosions are far from new. In fact, more people died in the 20th century than ever mentioned in the history of our world. Yet that has not made a dent in our population growth!

There have been religious views, both ancient and modern, that involve multiple wives and many childred. There is no evidence in history--ancient or modern--that humans gradually bred; in fact, the evidence in to the contrary to the circular reasoning of evolutionists. The excusses they feed people today are just not going to satisfy true mathematical principles. There just are not enough dead burried to support the largely exaggerated view of evolution, and there is simply not the population that we should have today if mankind has been living for as many years has evolutionists stake claim to.

For example, evolutionists claim Mexico was populated by farmers in 8000 B.C. This, once again, cannot be correct since there are not enough Mexicans worldwide to fill in the time that population growth would require for evolution to be evident in history and present.

 

[Beastt]

I have a question for evos. I've asked this a few times before. But I really have a hard time with the answer.

Evos say that man came from amoeba and apes and fish. Right? Evos have said to me that humans are actually no more advanced or no less advanced than these things. Isn't it safe to say then that we are more advanced than these things judging by our vast ability to create?

I would propose that not only can man not create, but that no event of creation can be credibly proposed. Creation requires adding to what exists. When has man ever done this?

 

[Pikachu]

I have a question for evos. I've asked this a few times before. But I really have a hard time with the answer.

Evos say that man came from amoeba and apes and fish. Right? Evos have said to me that humans are actually no more advanced or no less advanced than these things. Isn't it safe to say then that we are more advanced than these things judging by our vast ability to create?

Our ability to create what, exactly?

 

[Kripost]

This is historically unaccurate. Anyone can go through any history they find and as far back as written history takes and you'll find out that population explosions are far from new. In fact, more people died in the 20th century than ever mentioned in the history of our world. Yet that has not made a dent in our population growth!

Are you speaking in terms of mortality rate, or absolute numbers?

 

[plindboe]

This is historically unaccurate. Anyone can go through any history they find and as far back as written history takes and you'll find out that population explosions are far from new. In fact, more people died in the 20th century than ever mentioned in the history of our world. Yet that has not made a dent in our population growth!

Yes, more people died, and the immense growth that begun around the time of the industrial revolution was little affected. I don't follow why you think that would be a counter argument. It's obvious that a bigger population means a higher number of deaths.

There have been religious views, both ancient and modern, that involve multiple wives and many childred. There is no evidence in history--ancient or modern--that humans gradually bred; in fact, the evidence in to the contrary to the circular reasoning of evolutionists. The excusses they feed people today are just not going to satisfy true mathematical principles. There just are not enough dead burried to support the largely exaggerated view of evolution, and there is simply not the population that we should have today if mankind has been living for as many years has evolutionists stake claim to.

For example, evolutionists claim Mexico was populated by farmers in 8000 B.C. This, once again, cannot be correct since there are not enough Mexicans worldwide to fill in the time that population growth would require for evolution to be evident in history and present.

Based on what model? Let me guess, the 18th century exponential growth model, that we can see every day in nature being way too simplistic to account for changes in populations. You have to assume infinite resources and infinite space to accept such a model. Only a person who have no knowledge of today's biology or of the real world would consider such a model to be valid over long terms.

Peter

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It's obvious that bigger population means higher death rate.


i don't believe you mean what you actually said.
this is a false statement. for example, in late 20thC America the population is certainly larger than in the early part of the century, yet because of public health measures the death rate is certainly much lower later in time.

i believe you meant to say something like: larger populations have larger numbers of dead than smaller populations, using the term "rate" normalizes what you probably mean in absolute terms.

notes:
someone else pointed out the same issue earlier in the thread in:
"Are you speaking in terms of mortality rate, or absolute numbers?"

 

[plindboe]

It's obvious that bigger population means higher death rate.


i don't believe you mean what you actually said.
this is a false statement. for example, in late 20thC America the population is certainly larger than in the early part of the century, yet because of public health measures the death rate is certainly much lower later in time.

i believe you meant to say something like: larger populations have larger numbers of dead than smaller populations, using the term "rate" normalizes what you probably mean in absolute terms.

notes:
someone else pointed out the same issue earlier in the thread in:
"Are you speaking in terms of mortality rate, or absolute numbers?"

Thanks for correcting. You are quite right, I used the wrong words. I'll edit the other post at once and will send reps your way for noticing the error.

Peter

 

[ReverendDG]

This is historically unaccurate. Anyone can go through any history they find and as far back as written history takes and you'll find out that population explosions are far from new. In fact, more people died in the 20th century than ever mentioned in the history of our world. Yet that has not made a dent in our population growth!
Which is evidence for what? you do realize that after WW2 there was a large upsurge due to the war, a mentality to have children right? and it did make a dent or else we wouldn't have bothered now would we?
There have been religious views, both ancient and modern, that involve multiple wives and many childred. There is no evidence in history--ancient or modern--that humans gradually bred; in fact, the evidence in to the contrary to the circular reasoning of evolutionists. The excusses they feed people today are just not going to satisfy true mathematical principles. There just are not enough dead burried to support the largely exaggerated view of evolution, and there is simply not the population that we should have today if mankind has been living for as many years has evolutionists stake claim to.
red herring, why is religion relevent for population growth? i guess the black plague and the crusades and typhod and pox are not in your radar? this looks like an argument from ignorence to me.
For example, evolutionists claim Mexico was populated by farmers in 8000 B.C. This, once again, cannot be correct since there are not enough Mexicans worldwide to fill in the time that population growth would require for evolution to be evident in history and present.

this is silly, ok so no one in mexico has ever died? growth rates do not out match death rates, sorry that is just how it is, not everyone lives in the wonderful world of health care that you seem to
the fact is more people have died than have lived, not grown people, babies and children, up until the last 200 years it was really hard for people to survive to adulthood in a lot of places

 

[Split Rock]

Can you cite any evidence to back this up, or should we assume this is yet another unsubstantiated assertion that you use to muddy the water.

Back what up,you obviously conveniently ignore your evolutionary forefathers, evolutionary belief has always been associated with whimsical opinions and bizarre axioms as J Huxley affirmed " All aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values - indeed that all reality is a single process of evolution, Darwin opened the passage leading to a new psychosocial level- an evolution centred organisation of thought and belief."

Interesting quote... do you have a reference for it? Or are you happy to simply take it out of context?

In any case, as others have already indicated, the Throry of Biological Evolution stands alone quite well. Yes, we can see that many things in the universe "evolve," but there is no General Theory of Evolution that covers galaxies, stars, life, species all at once... nor does Huxley claim so. In addition, no one here claims an "Evolution Belief" as you desperately assume we do. If we did, you can claim it is a "battle of world views" and win a parity you do not deserve for Creationism. Sorry. No go.