• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Big contradictions in the evolution theory

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Carico, Aug 10, 2005.

  1. BeamMeUpScotty

    BeamMeUpScotty Senior Veteran

    +157
    Atheist
    US-Others
    Pot, please meet the kettle. Kettle, pot.
     
  2. LewisWildermuth

    LewisWildermuth Senior Veteran

    +116
    Christian
    Single
    Carico please quit spreading hate and lies in the name of Jesus, it is not only a sin, but damages Christianity in the eyes of those we are asked to love and reach.
     
  3. JoshDanger

    JoshDanger New Member

    42
    +6
    Agnostic
    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.
     
  4. DrummerWench

    DrummerWench Member

    90
    +12
    Christian
    Guess I'm not a "True Christian™", then.

    DrummerWench

    Edit to add: Heeyy! I'm over 15 posts! That means I can post links!!11!
     
  5. Nathan Poe

    Nathan Poe Well-Known Member

    +1,578
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat
    How many facts have you provided?
    More to the point, how many accurate facts?

    What exactly do you think it takes to refute you?

    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.



    Chapter and verse?

    I'll match any post you make, Carico, but thus far you've proven yourself to be bankrupt.
     
  6. Deamiter

    Deamiter I just follow Christ.

    +333
    Christian
    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!
     
  7. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    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?
     
  8. Ryal Kane

    Ryal Kane Senior Veteran

    +427
    Atheist
    Good old Carico.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    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.
    Carico, we are apes, by the very definition of apes.
    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.
    from their parents.
    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
     
  10. Freodin

    Freodin Devout believer in a theologically different God

    +1,626
    Atheist
    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!
     
  11. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    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.
    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.
    There is none, this I am afraid is a strawman of evolution. Nobody is suggesting that humans were formed as a result of hybridization.
    no, it is you who is confused, ebcause you are misunderstanding the species concepts, and the nature of biology.
    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
     
  12. Karl - Liberal Backslider

    Karl - Liberal Backslider Senior Veteran

    +273
    Anglican
    Married
    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.
     
  13. Mystman

    Mystman Atheist with a Reason

    +274
    Atheist
    Usual Carico trolling post that has been repeated for a million times: 72 replies

    my awesome "Humans should photosynthesise" thread: 8 replies.

    I'm going to go cry in a corner now.
     
  14. MartinM

    MartinM GondolierAce

    +239
    Atheist
    Engaged
    No, you don't.
     
  15. Mistermystery

    Mistermystery Here's looking at you kid

    +134
    Atheist
    No you don't. This exact sentence proves that.
     
  16. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    interesting, we will test that against the evidence:
    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?
    error #1 people are by definition apes.
    error #2 strawman comaprison.
    there are a number of interpretations
    error #3, it shows that Christian knows what they are talking about.
    you know that it could be you who does not know how to listen?
    No True Scotsman fallacy.
    ipse dixiet. please back up your statements.
    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.
     
  17. Lord Emsworth

    Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

    +348
    Atheist
    Private

    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

     
  18. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  19. Lord Emsworth

    Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

    +348
    Atheist
    Private

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

     
  20. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    oh I agree. but anyway, this "humans are not apes" thing seems to be turning up so much lately, that I am putting it in my sig now.
     
Loading...