Help Me Debunk this Article

[Non sequitur]

Well, I think the default position in higher aceldama is that humans "develop" from fetal tissue, with the fetal tissue turning into a human being literally in a moment's time ... that moment being called "childbirth".

I could be wrong though ... I certainly hope so.

I've also heard about this stork thing...

You are wrong, however, science has your back!

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Hi! I'm new here. I'm another ignorant creationist/non-evolutionist. How's it going?

Hello "ignorant creationist/non-evolutionist," it's going well, thanks.

Welcome to CF.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any how, I reckon tadpole eggs have all the DNA for developing into a frog,

According to one high-caliber scientist, human beings share the same linear stages of embryonic growth as: fish, salamanders, turtles, chickens, pigs, cows, and rabbits.

Some scientists deny this today, stating that rabbits in the Precambrian will disprove evolution.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

According to one high-caliber scientist, human beings share the same linear stages of embryonic growth as: fish, salamanders, turtles, chickens, pigs, cows, and rabbits.

Some scientists deny this today, stating that rabbits in the Precambrian will disprove evolution.

Yep, it's why you hiccup, fish face.

 

[Doveaman]

Tadpoles don't evolve into frogs, tadpoles develop into frogs, huge difference.

Is it because it only takes 84 days and not 84 million years?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

According to one high-caliber scientist, human beings share the same linear stages of embryonic growth as: fish, salamanders, turtles, chickens, pigs, cows, and rabbits.

Some scientists deny this today, stating that rabbits in the Precambrian will disprove evolution.

Ever wondered why you have hair? Or your windpipe is next to your foodpipe? Or you have muscles in your ears and toes that don't connect to anything? Or you have nipples?

Evolutiondidit. Case closed.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is it because it only takes 84 days and not 84 million years?

Because one is change over generations, and one is change in an individual.

How my car develops over my ownership of it, is different to how cars have developed over the past century. It's naive to think it's all down to timescale.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've also heard about this stork thing...

So have I, but those who engage in the science of toymaking figured out a way to play on children's upbringing and created a line of toys based on those born in cabbage patches.

Later, when the love of money died down, scientists rekindled it by focusing their attention on Thalidomide-like aberrations called 'Garbage Pail Kids.'

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, it's why you hiccup, fish face.

... Good one!

 

[AV1611VET]

Ever wondered why you have hair?

No.

Or your windpipe is next to your foodpipe?

No.

Or you have muscles in your ears and toes that don't connect to anything?

No.

Or you have...

NO!

 

[Non sequitur]

So have I, but those who engage in the science of toymaking figured out a way to play on children's upbringing and created a line of toys based on those born in cabbage patches.

Later, when the love of money died down, scientists rekindled it by focusing their attention on Thalidomide-like aberrations called 'Garbage Pail Kids.'

You mean capitalism.

 

[Davian]

According to one high-caliber scientist, human beings share the same linear stages of embryonic growth as: fish, salamanders, turtles, chickens, pigs, cows, and rabbits.

How could that be possible - they are animals! we are.. what was that again, AV?

Some scientists deny this today, stating that rabbits in the Precambrian will disprove evolution.

"Only Jesus could find rabbits in the Precambrian." - unknown

Yep, it's why you hiccup, fish face.

Every time something 'goes down the wrong way', I contemplate my great-great-great-etc-lungfish-like ancestor.

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean capitalism.

No scientists = no capitalism, no socialism, no Marxism, no Naz... nevermind.

 

[Non sequitur]

No scientists = no capitalism, no socialism, no Marxism, no Naz... nevermind.

The science of toymaking would lead to toys.

This 'playing on children's upbringing' and 'love of money' sounds like marketing ploys... which would be the science of making money... which is capit- nevermind.

 

[Non sequitur]

So have I, but those who engage in the science of toymaking figured out a way to play on children's upbringing and created a line of toys based on those born in cabbage patches.

Later, when the love of money died down, scientists rekindled it by focusing their attention on Thalidomide-like aberrations called 'Garbage Pail Kids.'

Oh, wait. I found some Christians practicing the science of healing. So I guess science is bad :/

 

[bobsterInJapan]

Hey, getting back on topic, humans are way way ahead of the monkeys and apes and other types of monkeys, even though us human are supposed to have the same A1, A2, A3 ancestors. All the others have monkey brains, literally. Us humans can manufacture and use computers and stuff. How come we're the only intelligent ones? Smells fishy to me.

Why would fusing of a chromosome or two make such an enormous difference to a monkey?

I have a theory. This evolution stuff may be happening quicker than most evolutionists think, and us humans are not part of the same equation. It's an us an them situation, us cool humans and them cool animals.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Hey, getting back on topic, humans are way way ahead of the monkeys and apes and other types of monkeys, even though us human are supposed to have the same A1, A2, A3 ancestors. All the others have monkey brains, literally. Us humans can manufacture and use computers and stuff. How come we're the only intelligent ones? Smells fishy to me.

Just because we have a common ancestor does not mean we are the same.

Why would fusing of a chromosome or two make such an enormous difference to a monkey?

Not the fusion even per se, but there is plenty of evidence that relatively small changes to a genome can make a big difference.

I have a theory. This evolution stuff may be happening quicker than most evolutionists think, and us humans are not part of the same equation. It's an us an them situation, us cool humans and them cool animals.

What?

 

[bobsterInJapan]

Just because we have a common ancestor does not mean we are the same.

Yeah, but I would've thought their would be more intelligent descendents left. I suppose the Neanderthals may fall into that category. Although, it's hard to say what they really were.

Not the fusion even per se, but there is plenty of evidence that relatively small changes to a genome can make a big difference.

Yeah, but I was talking about whole chromosomes.

DNA wise, 50% of our DNA is shared shared with a cabbage, so even 1% difference must be huge.

What?

It's a theory. In other words, lumping all of the animal kingdom with humans into the same evolutional equation may not be correct. Evolution, as it can be observed today, may only be evidence of an intelligent system.

Humans may manufacture a car, for example, but it will remain the exact same design even if it is parked in your garage for 1,000 years, it's not designed to evolve.

But in anything biological changes (or mutations) are an observable fact of life, but it's the starting point that is an issue.

Anyway, that's how my theory has started, and it is bound to evolve as I receive facts and arguments challenging it. But, I did start with a theory in the form of a few sentences and not "adcabbbadfaaaa", which would probably result in comments such as "you [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" or "hey, that is some typo", and then my theory would disappear.

 

[Herman Hedning]

It's a theory. In other words, lumping all of the animal kingdom with humans into the same evolutional equation may not be correct. Evolution, as it can be observed today, may only be evidence of an intelligent system.

Humans may manufacture a car, for example, but it will remain the exact same design even if it is parked in your garage for 1,000 years, it's not designed to evolve.

But in anything biological changes (or mutations) are an observable fact of life, but it's the starting point that is an issue.

Anyway, that's how my theory has started, and it is bound to evolve as I receive facts and arguments challenging it. But, I did start with a theory in the form of a few sentences and not "adcabbbadfaaaa", which would probably result in comments such as "you [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" or "hey, that is some typo", and then my theory would disappear.

I'm sorry but I still don't understand what you are getting at.

 

[bobsterInJapan]

I'm sorry but I still don't understand what you are getting at.

Don't worry, my theory needs a bit work. Watch this space.