Evolution happens

[Shemjaza]

I'm a True Christian.

I fail to see how that answers my questions.

When you say "True Christian" I assume you mean "Young Earth Creationist", but that doesn't require any particular interpretation of the existence and structure of extinct primates.

Obviously you don't believe they are related to modern humans... but many Creationists accept that they existed.

For example AV1611Vet accepts that all the examples of creatures we have labelled as the genus Homo are in fact just ordinary humans twisted by miraculous plagues.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why did you stop posting to me immediately after I put you on ignore, Warden?

Kind of a dead giveaway, don't ya think?

And why didn't you ever respond to my question about being a Post-Humanist?

Did I nail it, Bullseye?

You seem to be having some difficulties:

I didn't stop posting. (You do realise that not all members are in the same time zone as you?)
I am not Warden.
Members are unable to tell if another member has put them on Ignore.
You never asked if I was a Post-Humanist.

Did you nail it? No. It is difficult to imagine how you might have missed it more comprehensively.

 

[Think...]

Not actually true.

The point is that your hard line between single celled and multicellular and the hard line between asexual and bi-gendered sexual reproduction doesn't hold true for modern life forms, so it can't be described as an impossible hurdle for extinct ancestral ones.

You're still claiming a scenario that dodges my point ... of course.

It is actually true for the process of getting from non-life to a complex organism like man. Regardless of how many different kinds/forms of single celled organisms/multicelled, etc., the fact is that the evolution MUST go from non-life THROUGH the single celled and onto complex life.

There is no way around that.

The only way complex life bypasses that process and just appears is CREATION.

 

[Astrid]

You're still claiming a scenario that dodges my point ... of course.

It is actually true for the process of getting from non-life to a complex organism like man. Regardless of how many different kinds/forms of single celled organisms/multicelled, etc., the fact is that the evolution MUST go from non-life THROUGH the single celled and onto complex life.

There is no way around that.

The only way complex life bypasses that process and just appears is CREATION.

There are several things for you to get around.

One would be that nobody on earth has ever
discovered one fact contrary to ( a fact that
would disprove) evolution.

It could also be a problem to convince anyone but
yourself that you know more about science than
any researcher on earth.

 

[Think...]

... nobody on earth has ever
discovered one fact contrary to ( a fact that
would disprove) evolution.

This is what is referred to as a delusion.

It could also be a problem to convince anyone but
yourself that you know more about science than
any researcher on earth.

And this is a straw man because I've never claimed anything of the sort AND I wouldn't even need to be for evolution to be a fraud.

Evolution has been proven false so many times it's almost comical, if it weren't such an insult to the entire human race, but the facts are just buried and ignored by the huge organized front that desperately needs it as a very crucial leg of their entire structure of lies about the history of mankind and reality as a whole.

 

[Astrid]

---SE---

Knowing facts of science....lets try a quick test,
with just yes or no answers.

Were any dinosaurs as small as a chicken?

Did any flightless dinosaurs have feathers?

Do you get your " facts" from creationist sites?

Plz limit your answers to yes or no

 

[Astrid]

This is what is referred to as a delusion.

And this is a straw man because I've never claimed anything of the sort AND I wouldn't even need to be for evolution to be a fraud.

Evolution has been proven false so many times it's almost comical, if it weren't such an insult to the entire human race, but the facts are just buried and ignored by the huge organized front that desperately needs it as a very crucial leg of their entire structure of lies about the history of mankind and reality as a whole.

You claim exactly that in this post. You claim to know that ToE is
false.
No scientist on earth knows this.

Evolution has not been proven false.
You again claim arcane knowledge beyond that
of any scientist on earth.
If i knew how to disprove it I would be on my way to
Stockholm for my acclaim for the greatest scientific
discovery of all time.

So plz, lets not deny the obvious.

There is no disproof.

 

[YeshuaFan]

You claim exactly that in this post. You claim to know that ToE is
false.
No scientist on earth knows this.

Evolution has not been proven false.
You again claim arcane knowledge beyond that
of any scientist on earth.
If i knew how to disprove it I would be on my way to
Stockholm for my acclaim for the greatest scientific
discovery of all time.

So plz, lets not deny the obvious.

There is no disproof, and, you really dont know
much, at all.

There is NO proof nor evidence of macro evolution ever happening though!

 

[AV1611VET]

For example AV1611Vet accepts that all the examples of creatures we have labelled as the genus Homo are in fact just ordinary humans twisted by miraculous plagues.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

Psalm 38:1 O LORD, rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.
2 For thine arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand presseth me sore.
3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin.
4 For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me.
5 My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness.
6 I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.
7 For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh it was quite clearly a dodge - and an embarrassing one at that. I asked you a direct question about the concept you are here supporting, that being evolution.

You asked me if I wanted a physics lesson and I answered your question. If you taught me to be a physics master, it wouldn't make evolution one bit more true.

Your physics lesson matters not in the least.

Now are you going to answer my question or roger-dodge it once again?

I responded to a specific, non-biological, claim that you made earlier. There are plenty of other posters responding to your biological claims. I know that many of them are much better at the biology (and geology) than I am, so I stick to what I know best. I shall address your original claim again in a separate post clean of any of this personal stuff.

 

[Yttrium]

Many evolutionists are post-humanists who are in love with technology and their own selfish dreams of evolving in their lifetime via technology into a John/Jane Doe 2.0 version of themselves with greater mental abilities and the experience of literally existing within Virtual Realities. They embrace the concepts of Elon Musk and Neuralink-type technologies that will forever bond them with their computer gods.

They dream of living on Mars and all manner of space travel just as their Star Trek fantasies have so indwelled them.

The very idea of the God of the Bible, as well as Creation, is a huge threat to their fantasies and dreams of the future of humanity. The facts of the impossibilities of evolution are a side note to them at best and never even honestly considered.

Wow, those post-humanists sound like bad news. What can we do to counter those insidious troublemakers?

A fish will never, and never has, sprouted hair and opposable thumbs.

Just FYI: A fish sprouting opposable thumbs would pretty much disprove the Theory of Evolution, which would be all sorts of fun, but you might want to look for a better example.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Astrid]

There is NO proof nor evidence of macro evolution ever happening though!

Science does not do " proof". Nobody with even modest
grasp of science would make that mistake.
The " no evidence" thing is simply false- a similar lack of
knowledge..

A theory is always open to disproof.
Nobody has ever found disproof of evolution.

An opinion based on religion and unfamiliarity with subject matter
is not disproof.

 

[Yttrium]

There is NO proof nor evidence of macro evolution ever happening though!

If you define macroevolution as the amount of evolution we can't observe, then it's certainly true that there's no proof of it. However, the theory is made to fit the evidence, so saying there's no evidence of it doesn't really make sense. This evidence includes such things as relationships in the DNA, trends in the fossil record, and the observed evolutionary process itself.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow, those post-humanists sound like bad news. What can we do to counter those insidious troublemakers?

For one, we Christians can view them as a mission field.

Just FYI: A fish sprouting opposable thumbs would pretty much disprove the Theory of Evolution,

How?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I would disagree about the opening remarks that it's "totally devoted to the eradication of scientific fact."

1) What is a scientific fact? Is science not always growing, changing, and "evolving"? Especially when it comes to unobservable claims? It's not a fact that you claim something is between 10 million and 100 million years old.

2) Science is naturalistic by nature. It doesn't include even the hint of a possibility of a creator or supernatural God. If God exists, then that SHOULD change the game. Naturalistic processes should then be thrown out the window. What you say took billions of years could've taken the quick snap of God's finger.

3) There are creationist scientists who have PhDs and study in the realm of science. Just because they don't accept your status quo doesn't mean they aren't scientists. They just see the world differently.

4) Evolution does invalidate Christianity. Again, does God exist? If He does and He brought Jesus back from the dead, that defies science and logic. It's a supernatural event. Jesus spoke a lot about the flood and Adam and Eve. His own timeline begins with Adam in Luke. The whole idea is that man sinned in Genesis after creation and was redeemed by Jesus.

There are tons of holes in the theory of evolution. Probably one of the biggest is that life forms on earth are obviously the result of intelligent design. They are too complex with too many intricate systems working together in perfect harmony to be the result of random chance. In order for life forms to evolve into what they are today by random chance there would have to be an absolute astrological number of mutations taking place all over the earth, so much so that we would still be seeing signs of it. We don’t see any failed or incomplete attempts at evolution on the planet today nor do we see significant variations in different species mainly in humans. What we do see is the same basic structure and design in all humans. We don’t see people with a leg growing out of their neck or anything stupid like that in the design of human beings, we’re all basically designed identical with some small variations but still the same basic design. At the rate we are currently seeing evolution take place, which is no progress at all, it would take way more than 100 million years for us to evolve to what we are today simply by random chance or by billions of trial and error stages. In order for the theory of evolution to even be plausible DNA would have to possess some sort of intelligence in order to make the necessary changes in the mutation process. Instead what we see in DNA is an intelligent genetic code not random mutations taking place.

 

[Ophiolite]

And it is absolutely NOT random evolution.

What led you to the mistaken belief that evolution is random. If you think that then your ignorance of evolution and evolutionary theory is profound. When someone lacks that much knowledge on a topic it is best they ask questions to remove their ignorance, rather than make pronouncements and demonstrate their ignorance.

I'm a True Christian.

I'm a True Scotsman, but I don't normally go around mentioning it. (This might be the first time in seven decades.)

Genetics do not allow for any transformations between kinds. It's a simple, provable FACT.

Excellent. I look forward to the simple presentation of the proof. Failure to deliver will leave us in no doubt as to the value of your assertion.

A fish will never, and never has, sprouted hair and opposable thumbs.

Just FYI: A fish sprouting opposable thumbs would pretty much disprove the Theory of Evolution, which would be all sorts of fun, but you might want to look for a better example

Yttrium, though you are correct in one sense, you are technically incorrect. In as much as we evolved from fish, we are fish. So, this particular fish, courtesy of its many ancestors, did sprout opposable thumbs. I can no longer demonstrate the hair so convincingly, except perhaps in my ears and nose.

A dinosaur does not sprout feathers

Many dinosaurs had feathers. Turns out it was a commonplace feature of them. You really should get up to date with your arguments.

We have no animals alive today which are stuck in an in-between limbo that are half reptile, half horse, etc

Now, if such a creature did exist we would have to radically revise and perhaps abandon, evolutionary theory.Once again you just keep displaying in public just how little you know about the theory you attack which such confidence. It is rather sad.

Those who preach, and campaign for evolution, are liars and people who truly don't understand the facts of science and haven't looked deeply enough into it to consider both sides. And, of course, they are those who have been easily fooled by the lies of those who know full-well that it is all one enormous farce

This is a reportable offence. But it made me smile, so I'll overlook it. I do suggest you stick to facts and indulge in less goading and flaming.

 

[Astrid]

If you define macroevolution as the amount of evolution we can't observe, then it's certainly true that there's no proof of it. However, the theory is made to fit the evidence, so saying there's no evidence of it doesn't really make sense. This evidence includes such things as relationships in the DNA, trends in the fossil record, and the observed evolutionary process itself.

Maybe find out what he defines as what before handing over what will
be rebranded from a tautology to a big win.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you define macroevolution as the amount of evolution we can't observe, then it's certainly true that there's no proof of it. However, the theory is made to fit the evidence, so saying there's no evidence of it doesn't really make sense. This evidence includes such things as relationships in the DNA, trends in the fossil record, and the observed evolutionary process itself.

Well-stated.

It states your point-of-view across with clarity.

I don't subscribe to it, but it is well-stated.