Darwinism Proved! Dog Gives Birth to Kittens!!

[AV1611VET]

Darwin who has turned man into monkey and the 4 examples of what he has done below are some of the reasons I post in here.

The only ones who Darwin turn into monkeys are the ones who let him.

I refuse to consider myself a Homo sapiens; choosing, as did Moses, not to be numbered with the pack.

 

[Freysinn]

Darwin who has turned man into monkey[FONT=Arial, sans-serif].[/FONT]

We were considered monkeys long before darwin. He just proposed that we came from the same ancestors as monkeys, and now it is considered fact by the scientific community.

 

[Freysinn]

The only ones who Darwin turn into monkeys are the ones who let him.

I refuse to consider myself a Homo sapiens; choosing, as did Moses, not to be numbered with the pack.

The biolic taxonomy is not a part of darwins theory. The name Homo sapiens is just our classification. Why don't you consider yourself a Homo sapiens, are you an alien or something of the likes?

 

[Split Rock]

It's an assumption, speculation, possibility and probability. I have heard of it, and when you consider the exposed hoaxes of the past it makes the assumptions more likely. Knowing from scripture that God didn't create any apemen, there are only three ways for the evolutionists to create one.

Yes, it is an assumption based on your what you want to be. It is also slander, but hey... you are the one here representing Jesus, so I guess its OK.

1.Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual- a real "apeman".

This was Piltdown Man, and the only example of a hoax when it comes to fossils of human ancestors. So much for your assertions about "exposed hoaxes of the past (plural)."

2. Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade to be more humanlike.

3. Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.

So which is it? Are these specimens humans over emphasized as apes or apes over emphasized as humans? Professional Creationists can't agree which it is. Guess what? That is what we would expect from real transitionals.

Remember "Ida"? What was she proclaimed as not too long ago?

reality check

It is scientists who make these determinations by examination of the evidence. Not creationists. They don't examine anything.

To say that all fossils found fit so perfectly in the presupposed tree of life without questions or doubts or confusion in some areas would be an assumption in itself.

Woah! Talk about moving the goal post! Now we are only talking about "doubts or confusion in some areas." I thought all the evidence could be interpreted either as supporting evolution of creation, equally? Now we are talking about controversies over some details? No scientific theory lacks these and evolution is no exception. The point remains: the preponderance of the evidence supports common descent.

 

[OllieFranz]

Darwin who has turned man into monkey and the 4 examples of what he has done below are some of the reasons I post in here. For it is not the similarities that we have with apes that our focus should be on or directed to, but the differences.

1)[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]No thinker has accomplished more to create a cleft between science and religion.[/FONT]

But as I said, the very nature of science means it has to ignore the supernatural. That does not mean that scientists have to antagonistic to religion. Many have been men of great faith.

The rift between science and religion originates with religious authorities worried about losing respect and power. And it did not start with Darwin. Have you forgotten Galileo?

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2)No writer has done more to undermine the claim of scripture that man was made in the image and likeness of God.[/FONT]

How does evolution undermine the claim that man was made in God's image? It does not address the creation of man, and certainly not of man's soul.

And it actually confirms the claim in Genesis that creatures come forth each in its own kind. Canines have canine puppies, Felines have feline kittens. A dog does not give birth to a kitten. But the puppies that she does birth do not necessarily look like their distant ancestors or their equally distant cousins, because of selective breeding and/or natural selection.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3)No scholar has forged greater support for moral relativity and modern materialism.[/FONT]

I assume that here you are referring to the label "Social Darwinism" which is sometimes pasted onto certain sociological models, none of which were ever called by that name by their originators. It is almost always applied by enemies of these models, who have already determined that "Darwinism" is an evil philosophy and evolution is an evil science.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]4)His theories are treated as laws; his notions as knowledge; his speculation as science.[/FONT]

Again, you are confusing a theory (model) with a "guess." Evolution is not speculation. it is a model, or description of what is observed to happen.

You have yourself already agreed with each of those observations and "laws."

 

[Split Rock]

Darwin who has turned man into monkey and the 4 examples of what he has done below are some of the reasons I post in here. For it is not the similarities that we have with apes that our focus should be on or directed to, but the differences.

1)[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]No thinker has accomplished more to create a cleft between science and religion.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2)No writer has done more to undermine the claim of scripture that man was made in the image and likeness of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3)No scholar has forged greater support for moral relativity and modern materialism.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]4)His theories are treated as laws; his notions as knowledge; his speculation as science.[/FONT]

Darwin's theories are certainly not treated as laws. In fact, some of what he wrote in On the Origin of Species was wrong and has been dismissed. For example, his hypotheses concerning heredity (he had not read Mendel's work) was wrong. He didn't know about genes or mutation, or Genetic Drift. The theory of evolution has come a long way since Darwin. Yet, creationists still think it is to their best interest to attack him, rather than the theory today and its support.

 

[Split Rock]

The only ones who Darwin turn into monkeys are the ones who let him.

I refuse to consider myself a Homo sapiens; choosing, as did Moses, not to be numbered with the pack.

You can pretend to be a daffodil and insist we water you twice a week... it doesn't change the fact you are Homo sapiens.

 

[FreezBee]

Darwin who has turned man into monkey and the 4 examples of what he has done below are some of the reasons I post in here. For it is not the similarities that we have with apes that our focus should be on or directed to, but the differences.

Darwin was far from the first to "turn man into monkey" or monkey into man. Already Linnaeus classified humans as apes. And the word 'orangutan' means 'forest human'.

1)[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]No thinker has accomplished more to create a cleft between science and religion.

Not even an atheist such as Joseph Stalin?

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2)No writer has done more to undermine the claim of scripture that man was made in the image and likeness of God.[/FONT]

At least Darwin was a monogenetist unlike certain of his polygenetist creationist contemporaries.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3)No scholar has forged greater support for moral relativity and modern materialism.

Please explain.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]4)His theories are treated as laws; his notions as knowledge; his speculation as science.[/FONT]

No; no; no.


- FreezBee

 

[Meshach]

The only ones who Darwin turn into monkeys are the ones who let him.

I refuse to consider myself a Homo sapiens; choosing, as did Moses, not to be numbered with the pack.

They allow the similarities to dictate to them they are monkeys, but God has me focus on the differences that tell me we are not. Unique and set apart for His good purpose. I wonder how many of them invited some of their relatives for christmas dinner? Might have a big fight for that turkey leg though.

 

[Biologist]

Notice how creationists avoid my challenge.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The only ones who Darwin turn into monkeys are the ones who let him.

I refuse to consider myself a Homo sapiens; choosing, as did Moses, not to be numbered with the pack.

Why is nobody surprised that you'd choose to assert your own superiority by comparing yourself to Moses?

 

[caustic]

They allow the similarities to dictate to them they are monkeys, but God has me focus on the differences that tell me we are not. Unique and set apart for His good purpose. I wonder how many of them invited some of their relatives for christmas dinner? Might have a big fight for that turkey leg though.

No one's saying that humans are chimpanzees/gorillas/what-have-you. They're simply both classed as "apes" or Hominoidae because of their similarities. Just as cows and buffalo are both Bovids and llamas and camels are both Camelids.

Not considering yourself as one of the "apes" makes about as much sense as not considering yourself part of Mammalia

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don't you consider yourself a Homo sapiens, are you an alien or something of the likes?

Because I carry the Sin Nature --- passed down to me from Adam.

 

[Meshach]

No one's saying that humans are chimpanzees/gorillas/what-have-you. They're simply both classed as "apes" or Hominoidae because of their similarities. Just as cows and buffalo are both Bovids and llamas and camels are both Camelids.

Not considering yourself as one of the "apes" makes about as much sense as not considering yourself part of Mammalia

Wish you guys could would make up your minds. The differences, focus on those for awhile. Oh, and by the way I do not consider myself as one of the "apes" for one big difference is they cannot claim as I can to be a child of God. What's that you say? How do you become a child of God?
I thought you would never ask

 

[Nathan Poe]

How do you become a child of God?
I thought you would never ask

We didn't, in case you hadn't noticed.

 

[caustic]

Of course there are differences. There are also differences between glasses and mugs, tables and chairs, Baptists and Anglicans, etc. That's not to say that you can't classify them as belonging in some of the same categories.

Biology's method of classifying Hominoids (Apes) doesn't take the potential to become a child of God or lack-there-of into account.

Thanks, but 17 years of weekly church attendance means I'm already aware of how you could become a child of God if you so desired.

 

[Meshach]

Of course there are differences. There are also differences between glasses and mugs, tables and chairs, Baptists and Anglicans, etc. That's not to say that you can't classify them as belonging in some of the same categories.

Biology's method of classifying Hominoids (Apes) doesn't take the potential to become a child of God or lack-there-of into account.

Thanks, but 17 years of weekly church attendance means I'm already aware of how you could become a child of God if you so desired.

17 years , then you should be aware of the classification God puts you in.The Bible explains in detail why God made man. It reveals our purpose for existence. It provides instruction on ideal human conduct. It shows our ultimate potential.

Genesis 1:25-27.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Take note of how clearly God delineates the human kingdom from the animal kingdom? In verse 25, God explained how He made each species of animal after its own kind, the “cattle after their kind,” and “every winged fowl after his kind.” But read verses 26-27 again: God made man after the God kind!
He didn’t just create humans as a separate kingdom higher than that of the animals; He created humans after the God kind, with a colossal potential that no animal can ever have. One person wrote: “This revealed knowledge of God’s purpose for mankind—of man’s incredible awesome potential—staggers the imagination. Science knows nothing of it—no religion reveals it … and certainly higher education is in utter ignorance of it”
So if you want to classify yourself a beast of the feild because of what fallible man comes up with,thats fine. For me I will stick to the unfailling, infallibe, classification God puts me in. The difference is obvious between the two and as I have been saying the difference should be our focus.
I too have been attending church for over a decade and I guess another difference between you and I is I cant wait to get back in there. I was glad when they said unto me. "let us go into the house of the Lord"

 

[MoonLancer]

So without clothing, do we look like god does in a mirror? Now think of all the consequences if god looks as we do.

also bats and birds are not closely related. Do you think they are?

Something can be the image of something else without actually being it. You say god made us as God kind. That makes us gods. Do you want to revise your statement? There is no evidence even in the bible that God made us as gods.

 

[Mike Elphick]

It's an assumption, speculation, possibility and probability. I have heard of it, and when you consider the exposed hoaxes of the past it makes the assumptions more likely.

I don't accept that. I spent half my working life doing science and knew hundreds of scientists just like me. The very last thing we would do would be to forge results. Why? It is not only a matter of integrity, though that is the main reason, but of plain common sense. Since a lot of work is repeated, sooner or later other scientists are bound to uncover the forgeries. Such a discovery would instantly end one's scientific career and you'd be shamed and out of a job.

Then there's the motive. It seems you have in mind some grand conspiracy, but that's because you've been taken in by the mud-slinging of the creationist movement. A major incentive in science is to become well-known by making new discoveries and formulating new ideas, not hiding something away. Of course scientists can be taken in by forgeries made by others for financial gain. Then there's the odd ball who, for devious reasons, introduces a forgery just for the hell of it. Then there are those who exaggerated their findings. Scientists are fallible humans beings, but these examples are eventually discovered and corrected.

Knowing from scripture that God didn't create any apemen, there are only three ways for the evolutionists to create one.

Related to an ape? Shock horror. Now tell us what morphological, physiological and biochemical differences there are between you and a chimp.

1.Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual- a real "apeman".

Please supply a reference for this.

2. Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade to be more humanlike.

Please supply a reference.

3. Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.

Reference please.

Remember "Ida"? What was she proclaimed as not too long ago?

reality check

You make my point — science is self correcting. A lot of media hype and "experts have debunked [...the hypothesis...] she provides the "missing link" in the evolution of primates to humans." (from the article).

To say that all fossils found fit so perfectly in the presupposed tree of life without questions or doubts or confusion in some areas would be an assumption in itself.

That is not the point at issue. You are assuming, speculating, and promoting the probability (your word) that biologists have hidden fossils that do not conform to the evolution paradigm. You've "heard of it", but you cannot offer a shred of evidence to back your claim up.

 

[Meshach]

So without clothing, do we look like god does in a mirror? Now think of all the consequences if god looks as we do.

also bats and birds are not closely related. Do you think they are?

Something can be the image of something else without actually being it. You say god made us as God kind. That makes us gods. Do you want to revise your statement? There is no evidence even in the bible that God made us as gods.

Once again a display of a twisted, and distorted veiw of the intent of God's Word. It is what I would expect.