The Darwin Delusion

[shinbits]

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.

scientists can also disdinguish pig DNA from dog DNA. Likewise, humans, who (scientifically speaking) are animals, can also be easily disdinguished from other animals.


But this is my last reply to you. You're obviously some sad person purposely trying to make a mockery out Christians.

 

[DahliaAslan]

Don't feed the troll. Can you imagine some curious nonbeliever stumbling onto this steaming pile of ignorance and misrepresentation? Don't coax more idiocy out of this obvious fake. I have no idea who Carico is, but I take it this troll is merely one in a heap. starve them and eventually they will leave, right?

 

[peace4ever]

scientists can also disdinguish pig DNA from dog DNA. Likewise, humans, who (scientifically speaking) are animals, can also be easily disdinguished from other animals.


But this is my last reply to you. You're obviously some sad person purposely trying to make a mockery out Christians.

That's why pigs don't breed dogs and dogs don't breed pigs because they don't carry each other's DNA any more than apes carry human DNA and humans carry ape DNA. So one can't breed the other. Again, it's as simple as the birds and the bees.

 

[LightHorseman]

Personal attacks aren't love. So you need to look at the plank in your own eye so you can see clearly enough to take the speck out of the eyes of others.

I just follow Jesus because he showed the world unequivocally that he has the truth. He's my role model so I follow him. If you love him, I'm sure you would agree that his way is best. if you don't follow him, then of course, you won't listen to those who pass along his words either.

So this thread is about evolution, not character attacks. Please stick to it...unless of course you can't defend evolution. In that case, you've proven my OP and there's nothing more to discuss.

Seeing through your flimsy disguise isn't a character attack... but then you've never been great at using the commonly understood definitions of words, have you Carico?

 

[peace4ever]

Seeing through your flimsy disguise isn't a character attack... but then you've never been great at using the commonly understood definitions of words, have you Carico?

Sorry but that doesn't prove that monkeys or fictitious animals can turn into humans so it goes nowhere except back to the heart it came from. Sorry.

 

[herev]

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.

of course I believe that. this is NOT the theory of evolution.

But in order to discuss the story of evolution, one has to indulge in fantasy since the whole premise of evolution is hypothetical (imaginary),

factually incorrect

which is precisely why it's called a theory.

wrong again--does not imply hypothetical

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?"

wrong again

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.

wrong again

I'm not a science fiction writer so I'll bow out.

bye

I'll simply tell you what animals and humans breed in reality.

again, this is a straw man argument. Why don't you actually argue against something that really does have to do with the Theory of Evolution?

 

[herev]

didn't you just "bow out?"

So who does the world accept as the common ancestor? Please describe him.. or them.

that would depend on WHICH common ancestor. Each time there is a "branch" in the evolutionary tree, there is a common ancestry.
But here's a discussion about ONE SUCH common ancestor:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7368274/

The world will accept anything scientists tell them, hook, line and sinker without even challenging it.

factually incorrect

The only problem is, scientists haven't yet told us who the common ancestor is. So I'd love to hear your story.

the only problem is that in stating this, you actually prove you are not up to speed on what the Theory of Evolution is

 

[herev]

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.

you are truly missing the poster's point and arguing against something he/she is not saying at all. since humans ARE animals. Human DNA IS Animal DNA, thus your original comment is patently provably factually in error

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.

you can't even understand his post, why should we turn to you to understand science?
Just sayin'...

 

[herev]

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.

I think this part is interesting in light of the FACT that you keep saying things that are not true about the theory of evolution. Now I'm not talking about simply not believing it, but blatantly saying things about the theory of evolution that you have been shown to be inconsistent with the theory of evolution itself and then claim to actually know about it.
hmm

 

[peace4ever]

I think this part is interesting in light of the FACT that you keep saying things that are not true about the theory of evolution. Now I'm not talking about simply not believing it, but blatantly saying things about the theory of evolution that you have been shown to be inconsistent with the theory of evolution itself and then claim to actually know about it.
hmm

So then I take it the following is not true:

1) That evolutionists believe that humans came from some unknown animal or animals (since they don't know because they can't describe them) If that's not true, then where do evolutionists say we came from? or don't they even know? If not, then their statement is imaginary and you can't fault me for not knowing either.

2) That evolutionists claim that the genes of this unknown animal or animals (since they don't know how many there were ) changed into human genes over...let's make up a nice round number, shall we say, 700,000 years? or again, don't evolutionists know that either? And that was done by the process of natural selection? Or do they not believe in natural selection? Or don't they know that either?

So since Darwin didn't know his main characters then no one else can know them either. That means that one has to engage in fantasy to discuss evolution and if one person's fantasy is different than another's then one evolutionist can say that another is wrong.

So when an author can't describe his main characters, then he has no story. He simply has to leave it to the individual imagination of each reader to complete the story. Then you will have as many different stories as there are readers who make them up. But the only problem is, no one has been able to complete the story because even those who believe the story know that it's imaginary. So I'll let you engage in fantasy, I have better things to do with my time.

 

[herev]

So then I take it the following is not true:

1) That evolutionists believe that humans came from some unknown animal or animals (since they don't know because they can't describe them) If that's not true, then where do evolutionists say we came from? or don't they even know? If not, then their statement is imaginary and you can't fault me for not knowing either.

2) That evolutionists claim that the genes of this unknown animal or animals (since they don't know how many there were ) changed into human genes over...let's make up a nice round number, shall we say, 700,000 years? or again, don't evolutionists know that either? And that was done by the process of natural selection? Or do they not believe in natural selection? Or don't they know that either?

So since Darwin didn't know his main characters then no one else can know them either. That means that one has to engage in fantasy to discuss evolution and if one person's fantasy is different than another's then one evolutionist can say that another is wrong.

So when an author can't describe his main characters, then he has no story. He simply has to leave it to the individual imagination of each reader to complete the story. Then you will have as many different stories as there are readers who make them up. But the only problem is, no one has been able to complete the story because even those who believe the story know that it's imaginary. So I'll let you engage in fantasy, I have better things to do with my time.

the parts in red are not factually correct. Saying humans are not animals is factually incorrect. And if you have so much better to do with you time--bye!

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Humans are animals. Humans are not animals. Neither of these statements are inherently incorrect. It's all semantics. The word "animal" has multiple usages. For understanding we have to understand in what sense the word is meant.

 

[herev]

Humans are animals. Humans are not animals. Neither of these statements are inherently incorrect. It's all semantics. The word "animal" has multiple usages. For understanding we have to understand in what sense the word is meant.

AND if you go back to the poster's statement: "Since Humans are animals, they have animal DNA" Sorta puts it in context

 

[peace4ever]

AND if you go back to the poster's statement: "Since Humans are animals, they have animal DNA" Sorta puts it in context

Who are you talking about? I didn't say that. I said the exact opposite. Because humans and animals don't carry each other's DNA, they can't produce each other as descendants.

But because of the web of lies that Darwin as passed along, most people don't even know the difference between humans and animals so they can't possibly know what each human or animal is capable of breeding! And they claim that man is evolving? Most people knew the difference between humans and animals before Darwin came along. Unbelievable.

 

[herev]

Who are you talking about? I didn't say that. I said the exact opposite.

yes, I know. Everything ain't about you

But because of the web of lies that Darwin as passed along, most people don't even know the difference between humans and animals so they can't possibly know what each human or animal is capable of breeding! And they claim that man is evolving? Most people knew the difference between humans and animals before Darwin came along. Unbelievable.

we know the difference between human animals and other animals

 

[Skaloop]

But because of the web of lies that Darwin as passed along, most people don't even know the difference between humans and animals

And what, in your own words, are those differences?

 

[peace4ever]

And what, in your own words, are those differences?

I've already explained them. But those who can't spot the differences on sight won't understand them if they're explained to them. So it's really a waste of time to explain it. You'll just have to remain in the dark about them forever. And because of that, you certainly won't be able to know what humans breed! I bet you'd be under tremendous suspense when you're wife is in the delivery room.

 

[Skaloop]

I've already explained them. But those who can't spot the differences on sight won't understand them if they're explained to them. So it's really a waste of time to explain it. You'll just have to remain in the dark about them forever. And because of that, you certainly won't be able to know what humans breed! I bet you'd be under tremendous suspense when you're wife is in the delivery room.

No, you haven't explained anything, let alone the differences between humans and animals. Just give me five, in point form.

If you do not do this on the next post, you lose the debate. That is my ultimatum. It's a simple request that you should be able to easily fulfill. Whether I will remain in the dark or not, whether I will understand it or not, whether I will accept it or not; you can still present the differences. If not for me, for others.

The clock is counting down. Give the differences and reign supreme, or dodge the issue yet again and further cement your ignorance. The ball's in your court.

 

[herev]

I've already explained them. But those who can't spot the differences on sight won't understand them if they're explained to them. So it's really a waste of time to explain it. You'll just have to remain in the dark about them forever. And because of that, you certainly won't be able to know what humans breed! I bet you'd be under tremendous suspense when you're wife is in the delivery room.

translation
I have no good response to your question, so I'll hurl insults

 

[7thKeeper]

translation
I have no good response to your question, so I'll hurl insults

Am I the only one who was suddenly reminded of Billy Madison during this thread?

YouTube - No Points