I give up: I'd rather go backwards, than forwards (in Evolution)

[Semper-Fi]

Humans are animals.

I was made after the image of God.
All animals where made after there kind.
I reject the idea man is in the animal kingdom.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Evolution. Check it out. What has that to do with our immortal souls?

the spirit in a man


1 The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord,
which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation
of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

- science calls it you're conscience, they can't see,
or feel, or understand it.

8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration
of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

- it's what imparts thought, it's what separates
mans vast brain function from animals instincts.

How do science explain the vast difference between
man and animals brain output ?

 

[driewerf]

I was made after the image of God.

No, you were not. You are born, and nine months before your birth you were conceived (1).

All animals where made after there kind.

All animals are born or hatched. (1)

I reject the idea man is in the animal kingdom.

Reject what ever you want. That doesn't make it true.


(1)Fertilisation - Wikipedia

 

[Semper-Fi]

No, you were not. You are born, and nine months before your birth you were conceived

In the beginning God made mankind in His image.

All animals are born or hatched.

After there kind, a horse does not produce a dog.

Reject what ever you want. That doesn't make it true.

Reject the bible if you want,
that does not make it false.

 

[Speedwell]

In the beginning God made mankind in His image.



After there kind, a horse does not produce a dog.



Reject the bible if you want,
that does not make it false.

Rejecting a literal and inerrant interpretation of Genesis doesn't require that the book false either.

 

[VirOptimus]

I was made after the image of God.
All animals where made after there kind.
I reject the idea man is in the animal kingdom.

You dont get to make up your own definitions.

You are an animal, an ape. Thats a fact.

 

[driewerf]

In the beginning God made mankind in His image.

That's debatable. But certainly you weren't created.

Reject the bible if you want, that does not make it false.

Nope, it's content does.

 

[Semper-Fi]

You dont get to make up your own definitions.

You are an animal, an ape. Thats a fact.

Then why can I not produce another ape ?
Or Why can an ape not produce a human?
Why can man fly to the moon, but apes
can only swing from trees or such.

I go by what the bible says about "kinds".
I do not go by mans thinking on subject.
-

You mean facts like Ida, The “missing link”
they said is the holy grail of evolutionists.
Some experts called the skeleton the
“eighth wonder of the world.”

But it turned out it was a fraud, another
in a long line of distinguished frauds.

Or the the Piltdown man found to be a fake.
Haeckels published pictures were not accurate;
in fact, they were faked. Even Darwin used the
Haeckel lie, still printed in science books.

Another example is the peppered moths,
the pictures are themselves faked.

There are multitudes of other misleading statements,
false conclusions and outright lies common to pro-
evolution literature. These things continue to be
included in modern science textbooks and articles.

 

[Speedwell]

Then why can I not produce another ape ?
Or Why can an ape not produce a human?

I go by what the bible says about "kinds".
I do not go by mans thinking on subject.



You mean facts like Ida, The “missing link” they
said is the holy grail of evolutionists.

Some experts called the skeleton the
“eighth wonder of the world.”

But it turned out it was a fraud, another
in a long line of distinguished frauds.

Or the the Piltdown man found to be a fake.
Haeckels published pictures were not accurate;
in fact, they were faked. Even Darwin used the
Haeckel lie, still printed in science books.

Another example is the peppered moths,
the pictures are themselves faked.

There are multitudes of other misleading statements,
false conclusions and outright lies common to pro-
evolution literature. These things continue to be
included in modern science textbooks and articles.

Yeah, but all that stuff is second-hand, cribbed from creationists sources--and wrong.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How do they explain the vast difference between
man and animals brain output ?

Human brains are large relative to the sizes of our bodies relative to other apes.
Ape brains are large relative to our bodies relative to other mammals.

Like other apes, humans live in groups and cooperate with each other, communicate with each other, etc. Humans are just extreme versions of apes with better, more complex communications.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why can I not produce another ape ?

You can. You are an ape. You cannot breed with other apes. But guess what? Chimps cannot breed with us. Chimps cannot breed with gorillas. Chimps cannot breed with orangutans. They have all evolved past that point.

Or Why can an ape not produce a human?
Why can man fly to the moon, but apes
can only swing from trees or such.

What? Human apes are more intelligent than other apes. The fact that we are brighter does not mean that we are not related. By the way you are asking the wrong questions here.

I go by what the bible says about "kinds".
I do not go by mans thinking on subject.

"Kinds" is an undefined and worthless term.
-

You mean facts like Ida, The “missing link”
they said is the holy grail of evolutionists.
Some experts called the skeleton the
“eighth wonder of the world.”

No, we need no such "holy grail". You are misinterpreting a find.

But it turned out it was a fraud, another
in a long line of distinguished frauds.

Nope. Ida was not a fraud. Try again.

Or the the Piltdown man found to be a fake.
Haeckels published pictures were not accurate;
in fact, they were faked. Even Darwin used the
Haeckel lie, still printed in science books.

Yes, Piltdown man was a fake. Scientists found it to be one. That does not help you. By that standard the Bible is false since many men made false Bible books. They are not in the Bible, for the same reason that Piltdown man is not used. Again, by your standards the Bible is wrong. You need to be consistent in your reasoning.

And Haeckel was a minor scientist. His work was not "fake" he was only a bit rushed and used some the same drawings for an early edition of his book because a deadline was approaching. He was never convicted of fraud. And I think that you are confused. Embryology is still evidence for evolution. You might find Haeckels drawings in books about the history of the science.

Another example is the peppered moths,
the pictures are themselves faked.

Nope, that is a lie of creationists. They really exist.

There are multitudes of other misleading statements,
false conclusions and outright lies common to pro-
evolution literature. These things continue to be
included in modern science textbooks and articles.

Try to find a valid one then. All you have are PRATT's.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi there,

So I don't know whether to make this long or short, I just want to say that whatever Evolution is, I am not going to chase it.

amen! When world-class atheists themselves say that evolution conveys "anti-knowledge" and that it "stories about how one thing came from another... are stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" -- then why would Christians want to "trade in the Bible" for that sort of junk science in the first place?

 

[Subduction Zone]

amen! When world-class atheists themselves say that evolution conveys "anti-knowledge" and that it "stories about how one thing came from another... are stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" -- then why would Christians want to "trade in the Bible" for that sort of junk science in the first place?

But that never happened. That is your misinterpretation of a letter that you did not understand.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why can I not produce another ape ?
Or Why can an ape not produce a human?
Why can man fly to the moon, but apes
can only swing from trees or such.

I go by what the bible says about "kinds".
I do not go by mans thinking on subject.
-

You mean facts like Ida, The “missing link”
they said is the holy grail of evolutionists.
Some experts called the skeleton the
“eighth wonder of the world.”

But it turned out it was a fraud, another
in a long line of distinguished frauds.

Or the the Piltdown man found to be a fake.
Haeckels published pictures were not accurate;
in fact, they were faked. Even Darwin used the
Haeckel lie, still printed in science books.

Another example is the peppered moths,
the pictures are themselves faked.

There are multitudes of other misleading statements,
false conclusions and outright lies common to pro-
evolution literature. These things continue to be
included in modern science textbooks and articles.

Humans are apes; therefore our offspring are apes.

Humans are apes, humans went to the moon. Therefore apes went to the moon.

The rest of your post is wrong as well. Try to learn the basics of science and basic logic.

 

[Speedwell]

amen! When world-class atheists themselves say that evolution conveys "anti-knowledge" and that it "stories about how one thing came from another... are stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" -- then why would Christians want to "trade in the Bible" for that sort of junk science in the first place?

Because if they are not biblical literalists they get to keep their Bibles and their faith, so they can accept the theory of evolution for whatever it turns out to be.

 

[Palmfever]

The Atlantic; There’s No Such Thing as Free Will, (Casual determinism)

The sciences have grown steadily bolder in their claim that all human behavior can be explained through the clockwork laws of cause and effect. This shift in perception is the continuation of an intellectual revolution that began about 150 years ago, when Charles Darwin first published On the Origin of Species. Shortly after Darwin put forth his theory of evolution, his cousin Sir Francis Galton began to draw out the implications: If we have evolved, then mental faculties like intelligence must be hereditary. But we use those faculties—which some people have to a greater degree than others—to make decisions. So our ability to choose our fate is not free, but depends on our biological inheritance.

Horse pucky, we make choices. Science desires to quantify nature, but we are more than predetermined code responding to extrinsic events. This is the fallacy of Calvin.

 

[Semper-Fi]

No, we need no such "holy grail".
You are misinterpreting a find.
Nope. Ida was not a fraud. Try again.

Seems in the discovery of Ida, the media went crazy.
"Secular sources heralded the discovery in glowing terms.

The Times Online headline read, “Fossil find provides
’missing link’ in human evolution.” National Geographic
rendered the phrase “’MISSING LINK’ FOUND” in all caps—in
net-speak the equivalent to shouting.

Fox News referred to Ida as a “Holy Grail” fossil
that had instantly attained “celebrity” status.

Ida: Missing Link, Missing Evidence

Ida provides no meaningful “link” to human evolution.
It resembles the skeleton of a lemur (a small, tailed,
tree-climbing primate). The fossil does not resemble a
human skeleton.

"Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything
other than an extinct, lemur-like creature.
Its appearance is far from chimpanzee, let alone
“apeman” or human.

A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils
are unchanging records of dead organisms.

Evolution is an alleged process of change in live
organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one
presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed
belief to interpret the fossil.

Similarities can never show evolution. If two
organisms have similar structures, the only thing
it proves is that the two have similar structures.

One must presuppose evolution to say that the
similarities are due to evolution rather than design.

Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,”
the slightest similarities often receive great
attention while major differences are ignored."

Ida (Darwinius masillae): the Missing Link at Last?
-

Ida represents a previously unknown primate
species called Darwinius.

The scientists who formally announced the finding said they weren't claiming Darwinius was a direct ancestor of monkeys, apes and humans. But they did argue that it belongs in the same major evolutionary grouping, and that it showed what an actual ancestor of that era might have looked like.
Controversial "Ida" Fossil No Missing Link - CBS News

The new analysis says Darwinius does not belong in
the same primate category as monkeys, apes and humans.

Instead, the analysis concluded, it falls into the
other major grouping, which includes lemurs.

Experts agreed
-

Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
Why Ida fossil is not the missing link

Nope, that is a lie of creationists. They really exist.

Yes Peppered Moths do exist, but the pictures
where miss labeled and displayed as proof of evolution.

Peppered Moth Still Not Evolving
Peppered Moth Still Not Evolving

"researchers could not replicate the peppered moth results.
Other investigators discovered that most of the story's
facts were essentially wrong. For example, peppered moths
live mostly beneath leaves, not on tree trunks.

One researcher staged photos of the moths on
sooty trunks—not where moths naturally rest."

Peppered moths never illustrated evolution in action.
But now, more than ever, they clearly expose genius creativity.

The pictures doctored are still in school books in America,
even though it is been rebuked as facts.
Haeckels uses this fraud in his research.


Famous peppered moth's dark secret revealed
Textbook moth's dark secret revealed

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Evolution is purported to be change in allele frequency over time. However the question is was there enough time time for all the changes to have occurred?

A Christian who holds the Bible as true would not accept deep time as it flys in the face of Creation by Him.

If deep time is not true then the Theory of Evolution is not true. That is to say the gradual change in allele frequency cannot be the case.

This leaves the fact of evolution. Things do change over time- but not quick enough to fit within a Biblical time frame. So to my mind the scientists should be looking for a theory of the diversity of life on Earth that would work within a Biblical time frame.

I don’t expect scientists to understand how He did it but if the truly do have a spirit of inquiry they could explore how with greater vigour.

YIC

Change in allele frequency over time does occur, but this alone is not enough for evolution Evolution allele frequencies - creation.com

 

[Qwertyui0p]

That's just it. The "biblical" time frame has been off the table for 200 years. There is absolutely no evidence for it.

Do you mean scientific evidence, or evidence in general?

 

[SelfSim]

The Atlantic; There’s No Such Thing as Free Will, (Casual determinism)
...
If we have evolved, then mental faculties like intelligence must be hereditary.
...
Horse pucky, we make choices. Science desires to quantify nature, but we are more than predetermined code responding to extrinsic events. This is the fallacy of Calvin.

.. and yet we create the meanings of terms like: 'nature', 'predetermined code', 'extrinsic events', 'intelligence' and 'hereditary', by systematically constraining each of their respective meanings.

Which seems a rather odd thing for 'free-will' entities to do, when one thinks about it, eh(?)