Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
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.
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?The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.
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 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, by the very definition of apes.Apes are still producing apes today and always have since the beginning of recorded history.
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.So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced?
from their parents.Where did he get his genes?
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.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?
no, such rapid change is called saltation. again you are ignoring that evolution is of a gradient nature.Where did they come from? To suppose that, then one can also suppose that humans can breed offspring who can fly, can he not?
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.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?
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.The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.
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!
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.Carico said:I'm confused because evolutionists contradict themselves!
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.2 posters already told me that a species cannot produce offspring with another species. So which is it?
There is none, this I am afraid is a strawman of evolution. Nobody is suggesting that humans were formed as a result of hybridization.Where is this fertilized egg which you claim is a result of a human and another animal?
no, it is you who is confused, ebcause you are misunderstanding the species concepts, and the nature of biology.I was told in my biology classes that this is not possible. So apparently, all scientists are confused about this!
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:So since the premise of evolution can't even be proven, then how can the rest of the theory even be viable?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.
No you don't. This exact sentence proves that.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:rzuvich said:Whoa, talk about apostacy! I have a good understanding of evolutionism as a former evolutionst/athiest.
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?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.
error #1 people are by definition apes.Even IF people could mix with apes
error #2 strawman comaprison.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.
there are a number of interpretationsYou 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!
error #3, it shows that Christian knows what they are talking about.Any CHRISTIAN who defends Darwinism lacks knowledge of both science, Evolutionism and the Bible-and wholesale rejects what God wrote concerning origins.
you know that it could be you who does not know how to listen?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.
No True Scotsman fallacy.True scientists
ipse dixiet. please back up your statements.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.
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.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.
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.
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
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.
Lord Emsworth said:That only makes it worse. ETA: But it would propbably be denied by Creationists and Creationism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?