The Darwin Delusion

[Mallon]

No you didn't answer it. Why do humans not breed animals as descendants? Once you know that, you'll know why animals can't breed human descendants either. It's very simple.

Humans are animals. As you just admitted here, we share every basic biological function with them. Biologically, we are animals. Therefore, every descendant we beget will be an animal, too. We will not, however, ever give rise to already-existing species like frogs, turtles, cats, etc. That is not how evolution works. These animals have separate evolutionary histories all of their own.

 

[peace4ever]

Humans are animals. As you just admitted we share every basic biological function with them. Biologically, we are animals. Therefore, every descendant we beget will be an animal, too. We will not, however, ever give rise to already-existing species like frogs, turtles, cats, etc. That is not how evolution works. These animals have separate evolutionary histories all of their own.

Wrong again. Scientists can easily distinguish human from animal DNA, proving that humans are not animals. We don't share their DNA, we have similar DNA because we like the animals have to eat, breathe, eat food, drink, reproduce and protect ourselves. But by your "reasoning" dogs are lions because their DNA is similar. So if we actually shared DNA with animals, then we humans would occasionally be breeding other animals. Also, since bestiality describes humans sex with animals, then by your "reasoning" sex between humans is considered bestiality. So confusing animals and humans leads you to believe that one can breed the other. No wonder evolutionists are so confused!

So sorry friend, but all children can differentiate between animals and humans on sight, unlike evolutionists. I have to get to bed now.

 

[Mallon]

Wrong again. Scientists can easily distinguish human from animal DNA, proving that humans are not animals.

That's silly. Think about what you're saying. Scientists can also distinguish rabbit DNA from that of other animals. Does that mean that rabbits aren't animals, either?

But by your "reasoning" dogs are lions because their DNA is similar.

Sigh... Sometimes I wonder if you are even listening to what I am saying.
I am not saying that because two species share segments of DNA in common, they must be the same species (after all, if they were the same species, their DNA would be exactly the same). I am saying that similarities in DNA sequences are explained by the common ancestry of those two species. Your DNA is so similar to that of your siblings because you share the same parents. The same principle applies to evolution.

Also, since bestiality describes humans sex with animals, then by your "reasoning" sex between humans is considered bestiality. So confusing animals and humans leads you to believe that one can breed the other. No wonder evolutionists are so confused!

Your arguments are really getting desperate.

So sorry friend, but all children can differentiate between animals and humans on sight, unlike evolutionists. I have to get to bed now.

Perhaps you could try telling me which of the skulls below are human and which aren't (and the characteristics you are using to distinguish them):

Even creationists disagree about how to divide the skulls among humans and apes.

 

[gluadys]

Oh really? Then please describe the common ancestor (s), how many there were, what they looked like, where they lived, when they lived, etc. Then I'll ask people on other forums to describe the common ancestors and see if your stories agree. then we'll see if you are using facts or your imagination for your claims.

Look for a book called The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. It's all set out there, including the factual evidence of the human phylogeny.

 

[peace4ever]

Look for a book called The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. It's all set out there, including the factual evidence of the human phylogeny.

Sorry, but if evolution were a fact, you would easily and eagerly answer my questions. But you can't because the common ancestor(s) is or are as imaginary as each individual imagination. That means that no one knows the origin of man and Darwin's book "The Origin Of The Species" is a lie.

 

[peace4ever]

"The level of similarity observed between the human and chimpanzee genomes cannot be adequately explained simply by the will of the Creator, unless a theory can be developed to explain why the Creator would will such similarity." That's a challenge issued to his fellow creationists that all have been too lazy to take up today. __

________________

Wrong. Leopards and tigers have similar characteristics and by the reasoning of evolutionary scientists that means that one can breed the other.

God created many animals, some who like like others and others who don't. But as reality confirms, he created each animal to breed its own kind.

But in order to deny God, Darwin and his followers have to confuse animals with people and the boundaries between each animal! So they don't know which animal can breed what! So Darwin has created a web of lies so big that scientists are even more confused about what an animal and what a human is than ever before in history. This is Satan at his best. He can entice people who claim to be so intelligent and educated to be one of the most confused groups of people on the planet.

But God said he would frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent and make the "wise" look foolish. And that He has.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Peace4ever - I don't mean to appear rude but you seem to have started this thread simply to laugh at evolutionists. Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design are often laughed at themselves by people more interested in belittling them rather than talking. Please don't copy them.

 

[peace4ever]

Peace4ever - I don't mean to appear rude but you seem to have strated this thread simply to laugh at evolutionists. Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design are often laughed at themselves by people more interested in belittling them rather than talking. Please don't copy them.

Well, I certainly can't take them seriously! So I can either feel compassion for them like I do with high school students who don't understand arithmetic, or show them how absurd their claims are and that, either scientists really don't understand the basic birds and bees or they're outright deceiving people. It's one or the other. So which do you want me to do? Talk to them like children or laugh at their absurd claims? So if they wan to be treated like adults, then they need to stop making up stories like children do, especially impossible stories, about the skulls and bones they find, and dressing them up in whatever clothes suit their fancy.

 

[Mallon]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]1 Peter 3:15

2 Timothy 2:14

Titus 3:10

 

[herev]

sorry

 

[herev]

Wrong again. I have a question for you: Do you know why humans can't produce descendants that are; goats, frogs, monkeys, orangutangs, turtles, lions, tigers, or bears? or not?

If you do, then it's only a matter of the simple birds and bees to know why animals can't produce human descendants either; animals and humans don't carry each other's DNA. So one cannot breed the other. Only in the imaginations of men can that happen, not in reality. It's that simple.

I'm really surprised anyone is taking you seriously at all. You really don't know of what you speak. These are called straw man arguments and not at all new

 

[peace4ever]

I'm really surprised anyone is taking you seriously at all. You really don't know of what you speak. These are called straw man arguments and not at all new

So you don't believe that humans breed humans and apes breed apes. Is that correct? If so, then I can see why you don't take me seriously.

But in order to discuss the story of evolution, one has to indulge in fantasy since the whole premise of evolution is hypothetical (imaginary), which is precisely why it's called a theory.

The premise goes like this: "What if humans came from a monkey, no, an ape, no, a half-man, half-beast, no a fictitious animal? How could that happen?"

So in order to discuss how that could happen, one has to indulge in fantasy. And indulging in the imagination rather than describing what happens in reality is called science fiction. I'm not a science fiction writer so I'll bow out. I'll simply tell you what animals and humans breed in reality.

 

[shinbits]

Science fiction is about what could happen in reality, science is about what does happen in reality. All science fiction books and movies are written from a "what if?" which is called a hypothetical, or hypothesis (something that doesn't happen in reality). Examples are;

1)"What if aliens once ruled the world? How would that happen?
2) "What if aliens exist and war between each other?" Thus the movie "Star Wars"

The story of evolution is no exception. "What if humans came from monkeys or some other fictitious animal? How could that happen?"

The premise of your post is where you've made a mistake. It wasn't that scientists first decided that humans shared ancestry with apes, then tried thier best to back it up. Rather, scientists concluded after much study, that humans shared common ancestry with apes.

"Once upon a long time ago an ancestor common to a monkey, no a human, no some extinct lower primate mated with a...human, no a monkey..oh well I'll skip that part too.

scientists are sure that the first humans mated with thier own population. there's no confusion, as you're trying to make it seem.

Needless to say, a story that hasn't started out well can't end well either.

Not if some one like you has the story wrong.

Nevertheless, this badly written fiction story has been accepted as true in the real world. Why?

Because the real world doesn't accept the incorrect portrait of evolution you've painted. The real world accepts the actual portrait of evolution painted by years of scientific study.

But the fact of the matter is, animals don't carry human DNA any more than humans carry animal DNA.

Scientifically speaking, humans are animals. So we do carry "animal" DNA. Which would mean you're wrong.


Doesn't matter really, I don't think you're a real poster. You're probably a troll, or someone trying to give Christians a bad name with outlandishly dumb posts.

 

[peace4ever]

The premise of your post is where you've made a mistake. It wasn't that scientists first decided that humans shared ancestry with apes, then tried thier best to back it up. Rather, scientists concluded after much study, that humans shared common ancestry with apes.




scientists are sure that the first humans mated with thier own population. there's no confusion, as you're trying to make it seem.


Not if some one like you has the story wrong.


Because the real world doesn't accept the incorrect portrait of evolution you've painted. The real world accepts the actual portrait of evolution painted by years of scientific study.


Scientifically speaking, humans are animals. So we do carry "animal" DNA. Which would mean you're wrong.


Doesn't matter really, I don't think you're a real poster. You're probably a troll, or someone trying to give Christians a bad name with outlandishly dumb posts.

So who does the world accept as the common ancestor? Please describe him.. or them. The world will accept anything scientists tell them, hook, line and sinker without even challenging it. The only problem is, scientists haven't yet told us who the common ancestor is. So I'd love to hear your story.

 

[peace4ever]

Scientifically speaking, humans are animals. So we do carry "animal" DNA. Which would mean you're wrong.

Wrong again. Scientists can easily distinguish animal DNA from human DNA. And if humans were carrying animal DNA, then we would be occasionally breeding descendants of that animal.

So sorry friend, but since you don't understand the birds and the bees, then you mix humans with animals and thus have no clue what each one is capable of breeding. But creationists know.

 

[Mallon]

I'm really surprised anyone is taking you seriously at all. You really don't know of what you speak. These are called straw man arguments and not at all new

Ditto. Like I said, see Titus 3:10.
Christians converse with one another with patience, respect, and an open ear. We've seen everything but from peace4ever thus far.

 

[LightHorseman]

So who does the world accept as the common ancestor? Please describe him.. or them. The world will accept anything scientists tell them, hook, line and sinker without even challenging it. The only problem is, scientists haven't yet told us who the common ancestor is. So I'd love to hear your story.

There are many common ancestors.

Tiktaalik is probably one. Icthyostega is probably another. Way way before that, Haikouichthys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is quite possibly the common ancestor of all chordates alive today.

 

[LightHorseman]

Ditto. Like I said, see Titus 3:10.
Christians converse with one another with patience, respect, and an open ear. We've seen everything but from peace4ever thus far.

The smilies, the insistance that there is only ONE common ancestor in evolutionary theory... its Carico, risen from the grave! I'm telling you!

 

[peace4ever]

Ditto. Like I said, see Titus 3:10.
Christians converse with one another with patience, respect, and an open ear. We've seen everything but from peace4ever thus far.

Matthew 23:33, "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How can you escape being condemned to hell?"

So sorry, but Christ's love is not the love that the world who's rules by Satan gives or takes. Jesus doesn't compromise the truth to spare people's feelings. He openly rebukes those who pass along lies. Satan's love gives people what they want. God's love gives us the truth so people will repent and be saved. One's eternal soul is far more important than his earthly pride. So it's not loving to indulge people who pass along false beliefs. But the world doesn't like Christ's love which is of course, why Jesus was killed.

 

[Mallon]

Matthew 23:33, "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How can you escape being condemned to hell?"

So sorry, but Christ's love is not the love that the world who's rules by Satan gives or takes. Jesus doesn't compromise the truth to spare people's feelings. He openly rebukes those who pass along lies. Satan's love gives people what they want. God's love gives us the truth so people will repent and be saved. One's eternal soul is far more important than his earthly pride. So it's not loving to indulge people who pass along false beliefs. But the world doesn't like Christ's love which is of course, why Jesus was killed.

You aren't Jesus, peace4ever. You're a fallible human, like the rest of us, and as such, your interpretation of the Scriptures is just as likely to be in error as our own. None of us has access to the mind of God. Jesus had the right to judge hearts of the Pharisees because he was fully God. You aren't. Better to take heed of the Lord's command to answer others with "gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15), rather than with vitriol and condescending smiley faces.

As for me, I'll heed Titus 3:10.