Is Evolution A Lie?

[SonOfTheWest]

abiogenesis is spontaneous generation, things just dont pop up because all their components are in the same place, and i do know what evolution is. thats the problem with many ppl who believe in evolution, they want to make people sound dumb instead of looking into the stupidity of a theory created by a man who was angry with God because of his daughter's death (i sympathize with him) and decided to come up with a theory to disapprove God. Darwin said that if no transitional life forms are found then the theory can be disapproved. none have been found. and even if you believe in God as a TE, the bible says God spoke creation into existense and formed man with His hands from the dust. so if you believe in God you need to believe what he says.

how do amino acids know how to assemble to make a biological protein that can function in working in living things, nonliving matter does not have a mind of its own. therefore evolution is not true.

In the above, you are refering to evolution when you should be refering to abiogenesis. So like I said, you're lack of knowledge is showing. And there are in fact a lot of transitional fossils around. Creationists just like to ignore them.

 

[Assyrian]

abiogenesis is spontaneous generation, things just dont pop up because all their components are in the same place, and i do know what evolution is. thats the problem with many ppl who believe in evolution, they want to make people sound dumb instead of looking into the stupidity of a theory created by a man who was angry with God because of his daughter's death (i sympathize with him) and decided to come up with a theory to disapprove God.

I am glad your response to the tragedy of Anne Darwin's death is gracious and sympathetic. However you seem to have learned about evolution from people who are much more mean spirited and vindictive, who twist the tragedy of Annie's death into a fallacious argument against evolution. You really need to ask yourself if people like that are to be trusted.

It is true On the Origin of Species was published after Annie's death, but that doesn't mean Darwin came up with evolution be cause he was angry with God or that it was written to disprove God. Darwin had been working on evolution decades before, check out Darwin's illustration of the evolutionary tree, different species coming from a common ancestor, from a 1837 notebook on the Transmutation of Species

In mid-July 1837 Darwin started his
"B" notebook on Transmutation of
Species, and on page 36 wrote "I
think" above his first evolutionary tree.
​

 

[Astridhere]

In the above, you are refering to evolution when you should be refering to abiogenesis. So like I said, you're lack of knowledge is showing. And there are in fact a lot of transitional fossils around. Creationists just like to ignore them.

Lucy with two arm lengths and leg lengths. In this representation the short arm is put on the side of the longer leg. Lucy's right side in this demo shown Lucys arms to be no longer than Turkana Boys...yet she is a chimp or bonobo ancestor. So intoxicated are evo researchers that they haven't even noticed this Lucy is a mix of individuals that could basically be reconstructed from a pile of bones to reflect any flavour of the month.

Lucy with all her humanity as usually demonstrated with human legs and feet and reduced pelvis and is a chimp or bonobo ancestor according to his majesty Richard Dawkins.(Wiki Lucy) demonstrating an ape to ape variation. Again the 2 varying arm lengths are apparent as is the difference in leg length. The right arm is down to the knees the other is mid thigh. The right longer leg is bent to appear in motion to accommodate and disguise the difference is length. This is obvious fraudulent misrepresentation.

Turkana Boy with a whackey pelvis who was an athlete, now shortened to 5"4', with a pelvis obviously reconstructed from at least 2 individuals or more and was found over an area of 1250 cubic meters of dirt. As you can plainly observe the two halves of the pelvis are different sizes. Was Turk a limping mutant? Turk whose female companion the Gona female erectus was a short waddler that leads your researchers to suggest Turk needs a pelvic reconstruction to match and will soon be a waddler also...Go figure.........

Ardi looks 'human like' already. At least Ardi is not skeletally lop sided in her presentation.Too bad Dawkins thinks she is a gorilla ancestor.


Too bad you have no fossil support for chimp and Gorilla ancestry back to the common ancestor. Effectively half of the chimp/human support is totally missing. How curious.

Too bad you have a human metatarsel demonstrating an arched foot that could not possibly belong to an ape becoming a chimp or bonobo eg Lucy, and predates the intermediates mankind was meant to have evolved from.


Creationists have not lost the art of observation. If the evidence above is some of the ignored evidence you are refering to then I would say observation is not an evolutionists strong point.

Evolutionary researchers will not let science and observation get in the way of a good story.

 

[Celtic D]

Providing references might just make your post a litlle more credible!!!

You might also like to explain your own stance to us - as per your profile old earth but young man - please explain that stance to us

 

[Astridhere]

Providing references might just make your post a litlle more credible!!!
I presume evolutionists know their stuff. Are you unfamiliar with Ardi, Lucy and Turkana Boy? Are you suggesting the above pictures are frauds???? All depictions of Turkana Boys skeleton demonstrate his whackey pelvis. All the pictures of Lucy's skeleton demonstrate her uneven arm length. All pictures of Ardi look the same.
You might also like to explain your own stance to us - as per your profile old earth but young man - please explain that stance to us

Why would you ask? Is it that if evolutionists are unable to defend their fossil evidence they may as well try having a shot at my personal beliefs.

You should know Ardi, Lucy and Turkana Boy. Below is the support for Dawkins assertions, which by the way, you should already know.......

Richard Dawkins in his book "The Ancestor's Tale". According to this theory, chimps and bonobos are descended from Australopithecus gracile type species while gorillas are descended from Paranthropus robustus P. boisei or P. aethiopicus. These apes may have once been bipedal, but then lost this ability when they were forced back into an arboreal habitat, presumably by those australopithecines who eventually became us. In short, the ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas are A. afarensis and Paranthropus, respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominine

Further support for Lucy not being in the human line...
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568.full

As for my views....I adhere to the most liberal view of the bible. In other words it does not matter if the earth and all non human life is old. A day can be a period of time. The flood can be a mega flood. Mankind however is only 6000 years old or so as the biblical geneolgy states,... that is the YEC in me.

Hence, if the dating of mankind is erraneous so too can other dating methods be erraneous.

However, if the more literal views are maintained and supported I am happy to acknowledge that science eg C14 in diamonds. I believe God has the power and knowledge to create instantly as in 7 days, it is just that I do not feel the scriptures have to be that literal for the credibility of the bible to be upheld.

C14 in diamonds strongly supports young earth - two or three . net


I am also an earth central supporter.

Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

However the thread topic is about evolution being a lie. It is. TOE takes the ability of a wolf to diversify into other dogs, moths changing colour, beaks changing shape and immunity as the reason why a mouse deer can evolve into a whale or an ape into a human. It is a great extrapolation of what is observed into a myth.

Dogs cannot be bred to be as small as a mouse nor as big as an elephant. Genetic variability is limited and we can observe this here and now. The suggestion that a mouse sized mammal evolved into an elephant is not observed and there is evidence to suggest the contrary. eg Dogs. Then of course there is the mammary gland and placenta both being intricate systems where there is no adavantage in selecting for systems inbetween. In other words a placenta is of no use unless the biological chemisty of the female is prepared to nourish the placenta. Half a placenta is of no use at all. It is a system that is irreducable. Evolutionists have no satisfactory explanations as to how these systems 'evolved', only that they must have.

Human metatarsels that predate supposed human ancestors like Lucy is a support for the creation of mankind as an individual creation seeing as Lucy is a chimp ancestor and would not have arched human feet.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/02/the-twist-that-shows-lucy-wasn.html



Lucy and all her humanity being seen by Dawkins, a leading evolutionary researcher, as a chimp or bonobo ancestor really says it all.

I am not surprised as many of the chimp and gorilla ancestors, which you have no ancestors for, are hiding in the human line like Lucy and Ardi were.

 

[SithDoughnut]

However the thread topic is about evolution being a lie. It is. TOE takes the ability of a wolf to diversify into other dogs, moths changing colour, beaks changing shape and immunity as the reason why a mouse deer can evolve into a whale or an ape into a human.

No wonder you think evolution is incorrect. The theory of evolution does not say a mouse deer can evolve into a whale. It doesn't say an ape into a human either; we're apes too.

Genetic variability is limited and we can observe this here and now.

We have not observed any limit like that. Limits are a creationist invention, and are changed every time we see an evolutionary change that goes beyond the limit they arbitrarily established before.

The suggestion that a mouse sized mammal evolved into an elephant is not observed and there is evidence to suggest the contrary. eg Dogs.

The existence of dogs shows that small animals could not have been the ancestor of big animals? You're going to have to explain that one.

It is a system that is irreducable. Evolutionists have no satisfactory explanations as to how these systems 'evolved', only that they must have.

Generally there are explanations, it's just that creationists tend to ignore them.

Human metatarsels that predate supposed human ancestors like Lucy is a support for the creation of mankind as an individual creation seeing as Lucy is a chimp ancestor and would not have arched human feet.

Short Sharp Science: The twist that shows Lucy wasn't flat-footed

Your own source claims that Lucy had arched feet.

 

[Astridhere]

No wonder you think evolution is incorrect. The theory of evolution does not say a mouse deer can evolve into a whale.
Yes it does,, Indohyus is exactly like a mouse deer that is alive and well today. I am not going to provide links. First I want you to deny it. Then I will provide the evidence. It is the only way to get evolutionists to actually look up what they are talking about and refuting.

It doesn't say an ape into a human either; we're apes too.

Only because evos need us to be. Indeed our higher reasoning ability, abstract thought, sophisticated language, lack of long fur, and obligate bipedalism alone is sufficient to demonstrate we are not apes. It takes things like turning a humanized Lucy into a chimp ancestor to demonstrate the story of stupidity.

Oh so here we go again.. I am going to have to educate another evolutionist sufficiently so that we can have a reasonably intelligent discussion.

Playing on words is an evos hideaway. Mankind is an ape only because you lot invented the classification system that puts us there. In fact bipedalism is meant to be a human trait. That was supposed to be tied to Brain increase, That is proven to be rubbish with Ardi. With Ardi the common chimp/human ancestor was a biped. Now even you evos should agree that the common ancestor must have still been an ape because chimps supposedly evolved from her/him. For all you know the ancestor of all apes could be a biped. Hence bipedalism is no longer a human trait. If it is then chimps evolved from humans...get it????

So much for your taxonomic system.....

We have not observed any limit like that. Limits are a creationist invention, and are changed every time we see an evolutionary change that goes beyond the limit they arbitrarily established before.

Well then if that were true you would have provided a demonstration instead of opinion. I can support my words with factual information as I have which is more than you have done and more than you are able to do.

The existence of dogs shows that small animals could not have been the ancestor of big animals? You're going to have to explain that one.

I am not going to take on a discussion with a child. Dog breeders, particularly nes here in the country have tried to get as big a dog as is possible. A dog will not simply get bigger and bigger until it is as big as an elephant. Yet common descent suggests that something as big as a mouse, the first mammal, evolved into all mammals. It is impossible.

Unless you ascribe new genetic information to the DNA it is imposssible. If HGT or epigentic inheritance is responsible for providing the new information like ervs sustaining mammalian pregnancy, then you have proven that Mendelian genetics does not give rise to new species, only adaptation limited to within kind. It would then be new information from outside the human biological system not mutations by inheritance that gives rise to distinctly new species. So for now what we observe is limits to adaptation.

A wolf is meant to be the common ancestor of all dogs. That is fine with me. Creationists accept in kind variation. A bipedal ape adapting into other varieties of ape is fine. However mankind is not an ape because apes do not have higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated language and apes did not loose their fur in response to a hot African climate.

The point is there never was a common ancestor to dogs and cats. This is at the family rank and is a mess. There is limit to variation, that is why breeders cannot make a dog as big as a cow or an elephant. Indeed there is limit and this is demonstrated in the world we see today and in breeding. Evos have to ignore it to make their case for common ancestry.

Generally there are explanations, it's just that creationists tend to ignore them.

Did you even read the link you provided? It talks about the same woffle as usual being what environmental factors MAY have led to a placenta. It does not go anywhere near how a placenta poofed into existence, nor how an evolving placenta could feed a fetus. Indeed you can search for months..you will not find one that speaks to this..it was magic....

Your own source claims that Lucy had arched feet.
Use a little retentive memory that God hopefully gave you. Dawkins, a leadling evolutionary researcher, says Lucy is a chimp. So unless you are going to evoke homoplasy or covergent evolution or some saviour then Lucy has a better gait and more of a human foot than erectus. Are you able to get it? Evos will have to suck this up because of this one new Gona find. All the humanity and nonsense and delusion of humanizing a creature, Lucy, that turns out to be a chimp ancestor and now has nothing to do with humanity at all, says it all. Or are you suggesting chimps evolved from mankind because they evolved from bipeds and bipedalism is a human trait??????...or is it?

If you like we could talk about the Georgia fossils dated to 1.7mya and have ape feet and hands and of course are bipeds just like every ancient ape you find...... In case you do not remember the significance of this, Turkana Boy is dated to around the same age. Now would be the time to refute me. Then I will post the evidence.

What evoutionists have demonstrated clearly is that todays chimps, bonobos gorillas evolved from bipeds. If you like Lucy in the human line then you have bipeds with human feet without a waddle morphing into waddlers. Perhaps chimps evolved from mankind, because bipedalism always was a human trait.. Indeed these researchers have no idea what they are talking about. They are straw grabbing at indeterminable features.

Indeed an orang shares more morphology with mankind than a chimp challenging the DNA connection. If you deny this I will go find and provide the link.

Now bipedalism goes back at least 8my and you lot have a bunch of many species of humans walking through the wood or savanah, whatever flavour, that took back to the trees.

Have your researchers extracted bipedalism as being a human trait from biology books yet? If Lucy was so human and bipedal yet is just a chimp then obviously bipedalism was first an ape trait that mankind retained and apes lost according to evo findings. Many of your researchers accept that some apes today evolved from bipedal apes, even the ones that may disagree with Dawkins a leading researcher and creationist hater. Seriously, it gets crazier by the day. What you have is 150 years of mess.

A more plausible explanation would be that bipedal apes were the initial creation or at least some were bipeds. After the fall these also took to the trees because mankind became something to be feared.

This is so funny. Humanized chimps.....That is why I love to talk about this stuff, I get a jolly nearly every day.

 

[Astridhere]

The new erectus female from Gona, dated to 1.2mya, has thrown a spanner in the works. She has a waddle and is no athlete.

Acetabular and estimated femoral head sizes in the Gona specimen fall close to the means for non-Homo specimens (Orrorin tugenesis, Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus robustus), and well below the ranges of all previously described Early and Middle Pleistocene Homo specimens
Body size and body shape in early hominins - impl... [J Hum Evol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

Clearly, something is amiss. The body size dimorphism seems reasonable, but the pelvic shape suggests extreme behavioral dimorphism as well (males were out running long distances while the females waddled around bearing children at home). This may be reasonable, but it may not be. Other Homo erectus specimens, like the ones from Dmanisi provide evidence that small body size in erectus was not unusual. Perhaps our reconstruction of the Turkana pelvis requires modification, as it seems to be an outlier.
The New Homo erectus pelvis from Gona « A Primate of Modern Aspect


The Dmanisi fossils are the biped fossils from Georgia dated to 1.7mya with ape feet and hands. This Gona fossil pelvis was found more complete than Turkana Boy. It is outside the homo range. The outlet was even greater than in mankind.

Female Erectus now has a waddle as will Turkana Boy any day now. The Gona pelvis is more similar to the Orrorin, Australopithecus Africanus and Paranthropus robustus which Dawkins suggests is a gorilla, than a human.

Are you evolutionists suggesting a female erectus was less human than Lucy the chimp seeing as Female erectus more resembles Paranthropus?

Are you suggesting chimps evolved from humans because bipedalism is a human trait or has this trait been extracted from the list of exclusive human traits?

Why would Dawkins suggest Lucy with all her humanity, and reduced pelvis, is just a chimp ancestor?

I suppose you have to either agree Lucy is a chimp ancestor or disagree with Dawkins your leading researcher.

Either way evolutionists have big problems again!

 

[Nabobalis]

I suppose you have to either agree Lucy is a chimp ancestor or disagree with Dawkins your leading researcher.

Either way evolutionists have big problems again!

The great thing about science is that at an academic level people love to disagree with each other until all the facts fall into place. Disagreeing with a leading researcher isn't a problem as long as you can back up what you say. Also, problems always help a theory advance forward either by revising it to include the new information or to help build a new theory.

 

[Astridhere]

The great thing about science is that at an academic level people love to disagree with each other until all the facts fall into place. Disagreeing with a leading researcher isn't a problem as long as you can back up what you say. Also, problems always help a theory advance forward either by revising it to include the new information or to help build a new theory.

You say problems always help a theory advance. I say that falsification demonstrate the underlying assumption is problematic.

Despite this, erectus having a waddle means older species must have less of a human gait. This is about the only female erectus you have to go on. The rest is speculation.

These fully human footprints dated to 1.5mya could not belong to a waddler. They displayed a fully human gait with human arches.

The Shoe Fits! 1.5 Million-Year-Old Human Footprints Found | LiveScience

Could it be that mankind was already here when these waddley apes were getting around and indeed mankind were the ones to leave any tools or fires. If Mankind was created after apes then mankind was much more scarce and unlikely to leave fossil evidence. It is amazing that you have found footprints to demonstrate mankind was here before their supposed ancestors.

Many Gona features are outside Homo and more in line with Africanus and other more derived apes at 1.2mya yet demonstrates a more 'human' pelvis according to the reconstruction. Perhaps bipedalism and pelvis similarity to mankind are not determiners of humanity after all.

Another point being if Dawkins sees a chimp in Lucy then all this 'humanity' attributed to Lucy is a delusion and likely the case with erectus and ergaster.

The thread is about "is evolution a lie?". I say the above demonstrates that the evidence for evolution is a delusion. This is a good base to assert what is currently presented as evolutionary support is a misrepresentation at least and a lie most likely.

 

[mathetes123]

Is evolution a lie? A question raised in another thread.

Yes. It is a lie orchestrated to remove the need for God as an explanation for our existence.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Yes. It is a lie orchestrated to remove the need for God as an explanation for our existence.

Just as in....

Germ theory?
Quantum machanics?
Thermodynamics?
Chemical kinetics?
Meterology?
Vulcanology?
ect....?

All these subjects dont include God, does this make them I lie?

 

[Astridhere]

Just as in....

Germ theory?
Quantum machanics?
Thermodynamics?
Chemical kinetics?
Meterology?
Vulcanology?
ect....?

All these subjects dont include God, does this make them I lie?

You are confusing real science with theoretical science.eg gravity works to get rockets to the moon but falls apart at the singularity. This kind of remark is a misrepresntative shot at creationists by trying to compare the instability we see in evolutionary theory with the other sciences. It means nothing to those that can actually think and discern the difference.

Indeed there are so many 'irrefuteable evidences' for evolution that have been falsified I believe the thread topic has already been established in the affirmative. eg Knucklewalking ancestry, single cell abiogenesis, Lucy the human that became a chimp, LUCA whom is dead with HGT, Junk DNA that was run into creationists that is now known to be functional etc etc

Evolution is a philosophy supported by non plausible scenarios, like chimps with human foot arches.

 

[Nabobalis]

You say problems always help a theory advance. I say that falsification demonstrate the underlying assumption is problematic.

Exactly my point, its how science works. Problems mean that either that the interpretation of the old evidence is wrong or the assumptions that lead to that point need addressing. Problems in theories don't always mean the underlying ideas are wrong. If there is a problem as you have claimed, then given time it will most likely be explained when more evidence comes to light.

 

[Nabobalis]

You are confusing real science with theoretical science.eg gravity works to get rockets to the moon but falls apart at the singularity. This kind of remark is a misrepresntative shot at creationists by trying to compare the instability we see in evolutionary theory with the other sciences. It means nothing to those that can actually think and discern the difference.

Gravity is pretty much theoretical, we understand evolution more than we do gravity.

 

[Mr Dave]

Yes. It is a lie orchestrated to remove the need for God as an explanation for our existence.

Are the hundreds of millions of Christians (the ones who accept that all life evolved and see God as the creator of all that is , seen and unseen) living a lie?

 

[Robban]

Are the hundreds of millions of Christians (the ones who accept that all life evolved and see God as the creator of all that is , seen and unseen) living a lie?

No.
Could be that some think that others are just silly for taking it as it is.
When we came into this world everything was already here, there is a dog, a horse, a tree with fruit, there is the moon the stars etc, where did they come from? They were here when we arrived, some accept the telling in Genesis, some don,t, I do, along with many others.
Who has not taken apart an alarmclock when they were young, just to see how it worked, putting it together again can be a problem.
Science is good but not the only rule.
I,m thinking that at the culmination of days, the end of this era, science will converge with Torah, when the curtain is lifted and we shall all see how it really is.
If two people are standing on a hilltop, one can see 10 miles, the other can see 5 miles, so the one who can see 10 miles asks the other, "can you see that house 10 miles away?"
"No,I can only see 5 miles"
Is he lying?
Is it the same with creation v evolution, each side are thinking the same.
Why can,t you see?
No, why can,t you see?
Pretty pointless really.

 

[Astridhere]

Gravity is pretty much theoretical, we understand evolution more than we do gravity.

You appear to be one of those people that have difficulty in distinguishing the theoretical from the factual.

If you lot understand evolution so well why do you suppose all the humanity attributed to Lucy is rubbish as she is a chimp/bonobo ancestor according to Dawkins.

All you lot are doing is demonstrating the first creation of some apes, if not all, were bipedal meaning bipedalism is an ape trait as is a reduced pelvis. These are no longer human traits. Lucy had these but is not human nor on her way to being human being an ape to ape variation.

Human traits that define humanity, that are not homoplasic or convergent or parallel or any of those other get out of trouble type passes, are higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated language. None of these are demonstrated in any species other than Homo sapiens.

 

[Nabobalis]

You appear to be one of those people that have difficulty in distinguishing the theoretical from the factual..

Do explain, you have lost me.

If you lot understand evolution so well why do you suppose all the humanity attributed to Lucy is rubbish as she is a chimp/bonobo ancestor according to Dawkins.

All you lot are doing is demonstrating the first creation of some apes, if not all, were bipedal meaning bipedalism is an ape trait as is a reduced pelvis. These are no longer human traits. Lucy had these but is not human nor on her way to being human being an ape to ape variation.

Human traits that define humanity, that are not homoplasic or convergent or parallel or any of those other get out of trouble type passes, are higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated language. None of these are demonstrated in any species other than Homo sapiens.

Understanding evolution doesn't mean we have all the answers and if biologists are right now about to reorder the history of human evolution then so be it, I don't see it as such a problem. Personally, I'm not a biologist and lack any knowledge on the details of human evolution.

i just find it interesting, that you assume that any problem in a theory is a massive deal and is grounds to dismiss it.

 

[Celtic D]

Yes. It is a lie orchestrated to remove the need for God as an explanation for our existence.

TEs would disagree with you!