If I Evolved From Slime, Why Can't I Remember What I Ate For Breakfast This Morning?

[vonKarma]

XD, the best Parody ever.

1. I ate hard candy yesterday.

2. I did not eat bananas

3. Monkeys eat bananas

4. Therefore, Evolution is false.

 

[Split Rock]

Where in your family history do you trace your ancestory down to an ape? Can anyone do this? In fact, humanity can be only historically traced to other humans. The hominid thing is all a hoax like Bigfoot. You got to know this by now.

Where in your family history can you trace your ancestry to Adam? Can anyone do this? The whole talking snake thing is a myth like Bigfoot. You must know this by now.

I also have a very important point to share with you on the subject of breeding and human population. I saw a few shows that exclaimed that Mexico was populated in 8000B.C. In fact, there were nations from all over the world that were dated at this point in time. But lets just put our focus on the dating of Mexican population. If Mexicans have been farming since 8000 B.C. there should have been a population problem so big that the entire world be over crowed with Mexicans with no standing room left! Wars and plagues all included here, there is not a large enough population or enough dead found to support the evolutionary dating of the nations. It's all based on wild speculations.

There is no such thing as "evolutionary dating" of nations. Archeologists date ruins and artifacts, not evolutionary biologists. If you cannot get that basic idea straight, why should anyone take your claims of others engaging in "wild speculations" seriously?

This is historically unaccurate. Anyone can go through any history they find and as far back as written history takes and you'll find out that population explosions are far from new. In fact, more people died in the 20th century than ever mentioned in the history of our world. Yet that has not made a dent in our population growth!

Your understanding of what is historically accurate is as flawed as your understanding of dating methods. And yes, death rates do affect population growth.

There have been religious views, both ancient and modern, that involve multiple wives and many childred. There is no evidence in history--ancient or modern--that humans gradually bred; in fact, the evidence in to the contrary to the circular reasoning of evolutionists. The excusses they feed people today are just not going to satisfy true mathematical principles.

No excuses required. Hunter-gather groups today tend to maintain their population levels, and there is no reason to believe that was different in the past. Population levels did increase under agriculture, but famines and wars did indeed take their toll in the past. Expotential population growth is a recent phenonmenon in human populations.

There just are not enough dead burried to support the largely exaggerated view of evolution, and there is simply not the population that we should have today if mankind has been living for as many years has evolutionists stake claim to.

Really? Tell us how many dead have been buried in the past, and how you determined their number.

For example, evolutionists claim Mexico was populated by farmers in 8000 B.C. This, once again, cannot be correct since there are not enough Mexicans worldwide to fill in the time that population growth would require for evolution to be evident in history and present.

Evolutionists do not insist on anything of the kind. Archeologists and historians claim this. Maybe your beef should be with them?

 

[truth above all else]

Interesting quote... do you have a reference for it? Or are you happy to simply take it out of context?

In any case, as others have already indicated, the Throry of Biological Evolution stands alone quite well. Yes, we can see that many things in the universe "evolve," but there is no General Theory of Evolution that covers galaxies, stars, life, species all at once... nor does Huxley claim so. In addition, no one here claims an "Evolution Belief" as you desperately assume we do. If we did, you can claim it is a "battle of world views" and win a parity you do not deserve for Creationism. Sorry. No go.

Of course Huxley claims so, since he goes on to say "In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of a divinized father figure whom he has himself created, nor escape from the responsibility of making decisions by sheltering under the umbrella of Divine Authority, nor absolve himself from the hard task of meeting his present problems and planning his future by relying on the will of an omniscient , but unfortunately inscrutable , Providence. Finally , the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern , however incompletely , the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era"

 

[Ymeg]

Facts!

1. You can't disprove anything.
2. God exist.
3. Evolution is fake.
4. 1 does not apply to 2 or 3.
5. 1 does not apply to 2, 3 or 4.
6 1 does not apply to 2, 3, 4 or 5.

...



In short, God exist.

 

[truth above all else]

Facts!

1. You can't disprove anything.
2. God exist.
3. Evolution is fake.
4. 1 does not apply to 2 or 3.
5. 1 does not apply to 2, 3 or 4.
6 1 does not apply to 2, 3, 4 or 5.

...



In short, God exist.

Oh dear

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Of course Huxley claims so, since he goes on to say "In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of a divinized father figure whom he has himself created, nor escape from the responsibility of making decisions by sheltering under the umbrella of Divine Authority, nor absolve himself from the hard task of meeting his present problems and planning his future by relying on the will of an omniscient , but unfortunately inscrutable , Providence. Finally , the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern , however incompletely , the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era"

For all your quotes, can you explain why Huxley advocates that Evolutionary theory is implicitly atheistic? It is anti-Creationist (briefly: things aren't Created, they're evolved), sure, but that is as far as it goes.

To reject all religion and spiritual belief as congruent to accepting models of Evolution is absurd and entirely unfounded.

For example, I see no contradiction with my religious beliefs and the Theory of Evolution.

He says, "The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body". I disagree that the soul (and, by extension, the mind in it's entirety) can be said to evolve (with respect to biological models) without first subscribing to some form of spirituality (i.e., claiming the soul exists at all). So, in this regard, Huxley contradicts his own point.

 

[truth above all else]

For all your quotes, can you explain why Huxley advocates that Evolutionary theory is implicitly atheistic? It is anti-Creationist (briefly: things aren't Created, they're evolved), sure, but that is as far as it goes.

He affirms that science had established that a purposeless process of evolution was our true creator and hence had dethroned the God of the Bible
To reject all religion and spiritual belief as congruent to accepting models of Evolution is absurd and entirely unfounded.

The triumph of Darwinism implied the death of God and set the stage for replacing Biblical religion with a new faith based on evolutionary naturalism

For example, I see no contradiction with my religious beliefs and the Theory of Evolution.

They are mutually exclusive, up from slime is incompatible with the fall from Eden

He says, "The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body". I disagree that the soul (and, by extension, the mind in it's entirety) can be said to evolve (with respect to biological models) without first subscribing to some form of spirituality (i.e., claiming the soul exists at all). So, in this regard, Huxley contradicts his own point.

fair enough,Huxley invented the term agnostic to describe his own religious views, in essence it refers to those that do not recognise the Divine

 

[Najdorf]

this is silly, ok so no one in mexico has ever died? growth rates do not out match death rates, sorry that is just how it is, not everyone lives in the wonderful world of health care that you seem to
the fact is more people have died than have lived, not grown people, babies and children, up until the last 200 years it was really hard for people to survive to adulthood in a lot of places

Then where are all the brillions, even trillions of Mexican remains? If the world had already been widely populated like evos claim by 8000 B.C., then why can't we account for all those dead people? Surly there would be human remains piled all over the world? In Mexico there should be even more piles and piles of bones, but there isn't. There is nothing any of you can say to change my mind. I have common sense and I'll go by that before I listen to a single relativist who would deny logical understanding.

 

[Pikachu]

Then where are all the brillions, even trillions of Mexican remains? If the world had already been widely populated like evos claim by 8000 B.C., then why can't we account for all those dead people? Surly there would be human remains piled all over the world? In Mexico there should be even more piles and piles of bones, but there isn't. There is nothing any of you can say to change my mind. I have common sense and I'll go by that before I listen to a single relativist who would deny logical understanding.

In soil of neutral acidity, bones may last for hundreds of years, while acid peaty soil gradually dissolves the bones.

This article was last medically reviewed by Dr Trisha Macnair in December 2005.

Please note "hundreds" of years. Not "thousands" or "tens of thousands" of years. Quite simply, not ALL bones become fossilized. Is that logical enough?

Source

 

[[serious]]

I'm Chrisitan, ut these are funny so I'll hop in.

A. If God didn't exist, I'd just be some nut raving about an imaginary being
B. I'm not crazy.
C. Therefore, God exists

 

[Wiccan_Child]

He affirms that science had established that a purposeless process of evolution was our true creator and hence had dethroned the God of the Bible

Not so. There are many Christians who have reconciled the Bible with the current models based on Evolution. Only the literally-6000-year-old-Earth, man-literally-from-clay, woman-literally-from-rib, interpritation of the Bible is in contradiction to biological models.

The triumph of Darwinism implied the death of God and set the stage for replacing Biblical religion with a new faith based on evolutionary naturalism

Hardly. Tell me, have you ever heard of a non-literal interpritation? Theistic evolution?

For example, I see no contradiction with my religious beliefs and the Theory of Evolution.

They are mutually exclusive, up from slime is incompatible with the fall from Eden

Are you assuming that my religious beliefs automatically include the Judaeo-Christian Fall? If so, I find that highly offensive.

In any case, 'up from slime' (I'll take that to be your way of saying 'the biological model of the evolution of life') does not directly contradict the Fall. JohnR7, for example, is of the view that Genesis (Eden, the 'creation' of humanity, etc) is what happened once humans had become sufficiently evolved to suit the Hebrew God's purpose; that is, humans were only 'created' insofar as to be given a soul. This is a rather nice reconciliation of the Fall myth and Evolutionary models.

 

[Beastt]

Facts!

1. You can't disprove anything.
2. God exist.
3. Evolution is fake.
4. 1 does not apply to 2 or 3.
5. 1 does not apply to 2, 3 or 4.
6 1 does not apply to 2, 3, 4 or 5.

...

In short, God exist.

How do you define the word "fact"?

I ask because your assertions here clearly leave out any readily accepted definition.

 

[Ymeg]

How do you define the word "fact"?

Through sarcasm

 

[truth above all else]

Not so. There are many Christians who have reconciled the Bible with the current models based on Evolution. Only the literally-6000-year-old-Earth, man-literally-from-clay, woman-literally-from-rib, interpritation of the Bible is in contradiction to biological models.

to reconcile the word of God with mans whimsical evolutionary model is bizarre to say the least,ignorance of scripture is a great misfortune,it has given rise to false dogma, it has turned everything upside down.Divinely revealed truths must be approached with reverence and a contrite heart, not with mere idle curiosity and academic coldness


Hardly. Tell me, have you ever heard of a non-literal interpritation? Theistic evolution?

yes, what is it then that God created in the beginning,Did He create the cosmic blob to which atheist philosophers reduce the origin of the evolutionary process?.If God is added to the equation, it becomes acceptable to Christians, this is naive in the extreme,
Are you assuming that my religious beliefs automatically include the Judaeo-Christian Fall? If so, I find that highly offensive.

I cant apologise for the word of God , many modern scholars read scripture with a cold academic spirit, they do not wish to save their souls, they only want to prove what great scholars they are, what new ideas they can come up with, they want to make a name for themselves

In any case, 'up from slime' (I'll take that to be your way of saying 'the biological model of the evolution of life') does not directly contradict the Fall. JohnR7, for example, is of the view that Genesis (Eden, the 'creation' of humanity, etc) is what happened once humans had become sufficiently evolved to suit the Hebrew God's purpose; that is, humans were only 'created' insofar as to be given a soul. This is a rather nice reconciliation of the Fall myth and Evolutionary models.

Such a view is not uncommon shared with many of the most profound thinkers of recent times such as Dobzhansky,Teilhard de Chardin et al;but profoundly incompatible with the exalted works of the Church Fathers; more rigorous thinking is required before reading ones private opinions and passions into the sacred text.Scripture contains truth, if we doubt or criticise it, there is no benefit to be gained other than to remain in harmony with the wise men who quite innocently beleive they know more than revelation. "I thank thee O Father..that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes" Luke 10:21

 

[Split Rock]

Of course Huxley claims so, since he goes on to say "In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of a divinized father figure whom he has himself created, nor escape from the responsibility of making decisions by sheltering under the umbrella of Divine Authority, nor absolve himself from the hard task of meeting his present problems and planning his future by relying on the will of an omniscient , but unfortunately inscrutable , Providence. Finally , the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern , however incompletely , the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era"

1. Please give a reference for these quotes.

2. Please tell us exactly what Huxley claims is the General Theory of Evolution that covers the stars, planets, life, species, etc.

3. Once Huxley starts refering to religion, he is articulating his beliefs and is no longer using science. I could just as convincingly quote R. Dawkins to show that there are modern-day scientists who have aetheistic or agnostic beliefs. So what? None of this has anything to do with either the TOE or abiogenesis hypotheses. Nor have you shown that scientifically abiogenesis has been dropped from the TOE, since it was never a part of it in the first place.

 

[TheTaxman]

If you can't remember what you ate for breakfast, this is the last of your problems.

 

[Gottservant]

I agree with the original poster, there really is no grounds for saying we have evolved when the most obvious evolutionary development would be the fusion of survival and memory into one function. That it is otherwise suggests that we are meant for communication. The reality is that we are meant for communication with God.

 

[Gottservant]

Facts!

1. You can't disprove anything.
2. God exist.
3. Evolution is fake.
4. 1 does not apply to 2 or 3.
5. 1 does not apply to 2, 3 or 4.
6 1 does not apply to 2, 3, 4 or 5.

...



In short, God exist.

I have never considered the fact that you cannot intuitively disprove anything when in doubt. It is a fascinating observation you have made. To be clear, I would not say "God exists because you cannot prove intuitively that He doesn't when doubting" but "If you are without doubt, intuitively, God exists without your doubt".

Fascinating...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Facts!

1. You can't disprove anything.
2. God exist.
3. Evolution is fake.
4. 1 does not apply to 2 or 3.
5. 1 does not apply to 2, 3 or 4.
6 1 does not apply to 2, 3, 4 or 5.

...



In short, God exist.

I don't see how 1 leads to 2?

 

[Split Rock]

I agree with the original poster, there really is no grounds for saying we have evolved when the most obvious evolutionary development would be the fusion of survival and memory into one function. That it is otherwise suggests that we are meant for communication. The reality is that we are meant for communication with God.

Please explain to us how it would be possible to "fuse" survival and memory into one function. Evolution cannot do the impossible, regardless of how useful the impossible would be for survival and procreation.