The Darwin Delusion

peace4ever · Jun 7, 2009

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

I have answered this question. Unlike any animal, humans have the capacity to form abstract concepts, rule the world, make deductions and understand values higher than bodily gratification. But since you didn't know that by observing humans and animals or you wouldn't have asked the question, then why would you understand that if I explained it to you?

That's why I didn't answer your question but instead, asked you to begin observing reality so you can see the differences between animals and humans for yourself. Once you do, you won' t have to ask that question. Since evolutionists claim to know better than God does how the earth was formed and how man was formed, then they certainly should be able to know the difference between animals and humans! So if you don't want to be insulted, then don't make foolish statements that you know better than God does how the earth and humans were formed. "He who exalts himself will be humbled." Indeed.

mark kennedy · Jun 7, 2009

peace4ever said:
The story of evolution is no exception. "What if humans came from monkeys or some other fictitious animal? How could that happen?" Every fiction writer tries to make his story believable so he bases his story on some aspect of reality and makes sure he dots every "i" and crosses every "t" so his story his consistent within his premise. Only there are so many holes in the story of evolution that it looks like the author fell asleep during his thought process. So the story of evolution beings like this:

"Once upon a time 500,000 years ago, no, 600,000 years ago, no 750,000 years ago...I'll forget the setting and go on. Once upon a long time ago an ape, no a monkey, no a half-human, half monkey...I'll skip that part too.

Actually, the myth goes something like, 2 million years ago a chimpanzee like ancestor (Homo habilis) started walking upright and made tools. Louise Leaky was the son of missionaries in eastern Africa and at an early age read a book called, 'Days Before Time'. It was a child's book on Stone Age hunters and tool makers. He started collecting obsidian stones he thought were broken tools and his wife Mary, years later, would write extensively about them.

The thing is, the Homo habilis (handy man) fossils closely resemble large chimpanzees. The only reason they are considered ancestral to us is because of supposed tools found nearby. Late in his carrier Leaky would try to use the same approach to find simular artifacts in Calico man, named for the Calico Hills of the Mojave Desert in California. The results were that the archeologists he invited there uniformly rejected his speculations. He enjoyed great success in Africa because all he had to do was dig up an ape fossil and call it our ancestor.

Louis Leakey was a mythographer like Charles Darwin and Darwin's grandfather:

BY firm immutable immortal laws
Impress'd on Nature by the GREAT FIRST CAUSE,
Say, MUSE! how rose from elemental strife
Organic forms, and kindled into life;

ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.

The Temple of Nature, By Erasmus Darwin

"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.

Needless to say, a story that hasn't started out well can't end well either. A badly written fiction story certainly can't make a good non-fiction story. When an author can't even describe his main characters, then he certainly can't know what kind of descendants they can produce! But what makes the story of evolution a delusion, is that Darwin actually believed his characters were real! It's bad enough when an author believes that the characters he conjures up in his imaginations are real, but when he doesn't even know who his main characters are, then he is even more delusional!

Science fiction writters make good Darwinians, H.G. Wells being a prime example:

Furthermore, Wells concluded that ‘Darwinism destroyed the dogma of the Fall upon which the whole intellectual fabric of Christianity rests. For without a Fall there is no redemption, and the whole theory and meaning of the Pauline system is vain. H.G. Wells: Darwin’s disciple and eugenicist extraordinaire

Nevertheless, this badly written fiction story has been accepted as true in the real world. Why? Because the secular world thinks that anyone with a degree must be right! So anything scientists say is blindly accepted by the world. Few people even question whether or not evolution even makes sense much less why it's impossible. Darwin simply made up this story in a desperate attempt to come up with an alternative to the biblical account of creation.

This pagan mythology is nothing new, elemental strife being our source is as old as Babylon:

When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters mingled as a single body,
No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,
None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined--
Then it was that the gods were formed in the midst of heaven.
Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called.

(The Mesopotamian/Babylonian Creation Myth)

Notice that this was before the gods were brought into being. In pagan mythology the elementals are the creators of the gods.

But the fact of the matter is, animals don't carry human DNA any more than humans carry animal DNA. So goats, turkeys, monkeys, zebras, skunks squirrels or fictitious animals can no more breed human descendants than humans can breed goats, monkeys, squirrels, zebras as descendants either whether over a gazillion years or 9 months. All one has to know is the simple birds and bees to know why.

Since DNA is composed of combinations of just four nucleotides every living thing will be at least 25% identical. They like to say that we are 99% the same in our DNA as chimpanzees but that is simply not true, they get away with saying it anyway. They wouldn't dare say that in their scientific literature but they know most people won't read the peer reviewed literature.

So you can be rest assured, folks, that your descendants will be humans, not another species, least of all, a species superior to humans. Thus, the story of evolution is not only an accepted myth, it's the biggest hoax of the last 2 centuries.

It has a long history of hoaxes like Piltdown and how it's been so effective is a mystery to me. The Smithsonian offers this possible explanation:

Possibly one of the most famous scandals in all of science, the Piltdown Hoax illustrates the dangerous effects a preconceived notion of what "should" be true can have on the scientific pursuit of the truth. The Piltdown Hoax

It all comes down to their naturalistic assumptions. The a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent comes before everything else in TOE. If you refuse to make that assumption, the assumption is then that you are ignorant of science. It's as simple as that, God as an explanation for anything has been rejected well before actual evidence is considered.

Grace and peace,
Mark

peace4ever · Jun 7, 2009

Actually, the myth goes something like, 2 million years ago a chimpanzee like ancestor (Homo habilis) started walking upright and made tools. Louise Leaky was the son of missionaries in eastern Africa and at an early age read a book called, 'Days Before Time'. It was a child's book on Stone Age hunters and tool makers. He started collecting obsidian stones he thought were broken tools and his wife Mary, years later, would write extensively about them.

The thing is, the Homo habilis (handy man) fossils closely resemble large chimpanzees. The only reason they are considered ancestral to us is because of supposed tools found nearby. Late in his carrier Leaky would try to use the same approach to find simular artifacts in Calico man, named for the Calico Hills of the Mojave Desert in California. The results were that the archeologists he invited there uniformly rejected his speculations. He enjoyed great success in Africa because all he had to do was dig up an ape fossil and call it our ancestor.

Hm...I wonder why the first-speaking humans never mentioned them. After all, these "forerunners of humans then allegedly lived for millions of years which is much longer than modern day humans have lived and there's not one account from any ancient peoples of these half-men, half-beasts. It's as if they never even existed. I wonder why that is. Maybe they were ashamed that their "ancestors" couldn't talk.

Sorry friend, but there's no way to know whether the scattered skulls and bones they pieced together all came from the same body. Absolutely none. So piecing skulls and bones together is called artwork, not science.

But the problem is, where did those creatures come from? Again, I guess it depends on each individual imagination. So Darwin still hasn't described his main characters but instead, has left it to the imaginations of his readers. So his story of evolution is still badly written since he himself can't describe his main characters and thus can't possibly know what they were capable of producing as descendants. And a very badly written fiction story doesn't make a good true story. Sorry.

Assyrian · Jun 7, 2009

mark kennedy said:
This pagan mythology is nothing new, elemental strife being our source is as old as Babylon:

When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters mingled as a single body,
No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,
None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined--
Then it was that the gods were formed in the midst of heaven.
Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called.

(The Mesopotamian/Babylonian Creation Myth)
Notice that this was before the gods were brought into being. In pagan mythology the elementals are the creators of the gods.

For your analogy to work you have to equate God with the Babylonian gods. In fact we know the Babylonian gods were not the creator and it turns out the Babylonians knew it too. I think you biggest mistake is to confuse elementals, supernatural beings associated with fire earth air and water, with chemical elements, inanimate matter. The Babylonians described Apsu and Tiamat as supernatural beings, mother and father who gave birth to all of creation, and all the ones the Babylonains called gods. I am not an expert. but wiki describes the depiction of Apsu in Enûma Elish as a deity, the article on Taimat describes her as a goddess. That is certainly what they sound like in the section you quote. There were before the other gods certainly, but the Babylonian epics describe a divine creation not a materialistic one.

shernren · Jun 7, 2009

mark kennedy said:
The thing is, the Homo habilis (handy man) fossils closely resemble large chimpanzees. The only reason they are considered ancestral to us is because of supposed tools found nearby.

Please list any anatomical similarities between Homo habilis fossils and extant large chimpanzees that are not also found in humans.

Or are you afraid of publicly admitting that you simply have no idea what you're talking about?

Your repeated harping on Leakey's "Days Before Time" is starting to sound more like Dr. Seuss than Ken Ham. If you want to slander people who aren't around to defend themselves any more, the least you could do is to be more mature about your choice of fallacies.

Mallon · Jun 7, 2009

Here are some photos to make comparison easier...

chimp skull:

Homo habilis skull:

Human skull:

peace4ever · Jun 8, 2009

The second skull looks more like an ape skull than a human skull. But since scientists are in the business of inventing imaginary animals, they make up new names for skulls and call them anything they want to call them and people believe those imaginary animals actually lived.

Assyrian · Jun 8, 2009

You are saying the organism whose skull we see there was never alive?

Mallon · Jun 8, 2009

peace4ever said:
The second skull looks more like an ape skull than a human skull.

In what ways, specifically? Let's talk about the details. I see a number of details that look more human-like. The reduced brow ridge and increased cranial capacity, for example.
Then again, there are some details that do look chimp-like, such as the protruding face.
All in all, I'd Homo habilis has features that are both chimp-like and human-like. Almost transitional...

philadiddle · Jun 8, 2009

peace4ever said:
The second skull looks more like an ape skull than a human skull. But since scientists are in the business of inventing imaginary animals, they make up new names for skulls and call them anything they want to call them and people believe those imaginary animals actually lived.

*cough..TROLL...*cough cough

Mallon · Aug 20, 2009

AuriDartessa said:
It has, in short, made me want to strangle you until you pass out, string you up by your thumbs, and then wake you up by gutting you as slowly as I can manage. Your complete lack of anything remotely resembling intelligence has enraged me to the point that, despite the fact that I am normally a very peaceful person, I am willing and wanting to do extreme physical harm to you the first chance I get, if only to remove any chance you have from continuing to spout your nonsense and prevent you from passing on your stupidity to any offspring.

Just as peace4ever's thoughts do not reflect well on Christianity, so also do yours not reflect well on paganism!

The Lady Kate · Aug 20, 2009

peace4ever said:
So then I take it the following is not true:

"That all it takes is one person intoxicated by their own vanity to single-handedly dismantle centuries of good science."

Nope, not true at all.

So I'll let you engage in fantasy, I have better things to do with my time.

And yet, you'll be back for the attention.

marlowe007 · Aug 22, 2009

peace4ever said:
Looking at fossils is as subjective as speculating what shapes leaves on a tree form. Thus, the old adage, "archeologists always find what they're looking for" is true because they make the shapes on fossil be whatever they imagine them to be. So sorry, but the imagination is not evidence. So try again.

For every transitional fossil found, there is one missing. There are many holes in the theory of evolution, and although they are tiny, if you poke enough holes in the titanic the ship is bound to sink.

You've demonstrated far more logic than any of these pseudo-intellectual Darwinists.

gluadys · Aug 22, 2009

marlowe007 said:
For every transitional fossil found, there is one missing.

So? Every transitional fossil found is one more than non-evolutionary creationism calls for.

marlowe007 · Aug 23, 2009

gluadys said:
So? Every transitional fossil found is one more than non-evolutionary creationism calls for.

That depends on which non-evolutionary creationist you converse with. Some will outright deny the existence of intermediate forms, whereas others (Kurt Wise, for example) will not only affirm them but concede that such fossils provide strong evidence for macroevolution.

As for my part, it's fairly obvious that Archaeopteryx for example is a chimeric mix of features, but the attacks on the fossil as a "complete bird" made by YECs have no real applicability in an Old Earth scenario wherein God continually meddles in Creation to keep the earth stocked with animals.

gluadys · Aug 23, 2009

marlowe007 said:
That depends on which non-evolutionary creationist you converse with. Some will outright deny the existence of intermediate forms, whereas others (Kurt Wise, for example) will not only affirm them but concede that such fossils provide strong evidence for macroevolution.

As for my part, it's fairly obvious that Archaeopteryx for example is a chimeric mix of features, but the attacks on the fossil as a "complete bird" made by YECs have no real applicability in an Old Earth scenario wherein God continually meddles in Creation to keep the earth stocked with animals.

The question is whether such "meddling" requires transitional forms. At bottom, all anti-evolutionary creationism holds to some version of separately created kinds, and there ought to be, theoretically, no transitions between such kinds. So every such transition as is found (e.g. Archeopteryx) is one more than called for by special creation.

Wise has widened the concept of "kind" far beyond the family-level assumed by many YECs. And that is the only way YECism (or for that matter OECism) can accommodate transitional fossils--by keeping the "kind" boundaries flexible enough to bring them within the umbrella of the separately created kind.

Logically, this can only end with the same conclusion already reached by evolutionary scientists. There is only one "kind": Life.

Mick116 · Aug 23, 2009

peace4ever said:
Mallon said:

You have a very poor and outdated understanding of evolution, peace4ever. To learn about what evolution really is, check out:

Sorry friend, but like everyone else, I grew up with the myth of evolution ever since childhood. So i know a lot more about it than scientists do because I know why animals can't turn into people or breed people whether over a gazillion years or 9 months and scientists don't. Their whole story is a concoction of their imagination by trying to figure out how an animal could turn into a human. Animals don't breed human descendants in reality and there are zero accounts of any ancient people of their vine swinging ancestors.

One would think that the first speaking human(s) would have had marvelous tales about their non-speaking parents, grandparents, etc, especially since scientists claim that their ancestors lived for a much longer time than humans have lived on earth! yet there are exactly zero accounts of these creatures. I wonder why that is. The answer is very simple; because transitional species are a figment of the imaginations of modern-day scientists and not very good ones at that. So evolution can't be verified historically any more than it can be verified biologically.

Click to expand...

You seem to be quite an arrogant person by this post. Please, approach this topic with humility and recognise that the question of origins will never be settled within the Church; there is room enough for young-earth, old-earth and evolutionary creationism. Each are valid interpretations of scripture, even as there are different views on baptism, predestination, healing etc.

Assyrian · Aug 23, 2009

You now there was once controversy in the church over a flat earth (only a minority view but it was a valid interpretation), over the existence of the antipodes, a great continent on the other hemisphere of world, that if it existed it could not be inhabited because Adam was created on our side of the globe. Australian Aborigines showed that argument was mistaken and you don't hear from it very much apart from history lessons. Geocentrism was the only way people understood a wide range of different passages and Copernicus caused great consternation when he showed the earth went round the sun. For quite a while after you still had Christians insisting heliocentrism was wrong and that the bible taught us the sun went round the earth which was fixed in place. I am sure you interpret those passage differently, but the geocentrist had a valid interpretation. Or at least it was valid until science showed it was mistaken. You don't hear too much from geocentrists these days, less from flat earthers, and no one denies the existence of an antipodean continent.

The different between these interpretations and YEC or anti evolution OEC? Simply time. It take some parts of the church longer to come to terms with new science. It takes time for a raging controversy to become a 'don't know what the fuss was about'. However doctrines like baptism and predestination are theological questions and while some parts of the church fell they have come to a better understanding of scripture, the more traditional people will simply disagree. Neither view is challenge by being contradicted by a science that having made a discovery and backed it up with evidence and experiment, never goes back. There is no room in science for traditionalists wanting to claim the earth is really flat or that there are only four (or five) elements. The evidence that showed this was wrong does not change and science will go further, but not back. And in the end doctrines that insist the science is wrong, with and die, because you simply can't keep denying reality generation after generation. YEC and OEC are all reasonable ways to interpret Genesis, what is not valid is holding onto the interpretation after we have seen that they are wrong.

marlowe007 · Aug 23, 2009

gluadys said:
The question is whether such "meddling" requires transitional forms.

I don't see why not. Progressive creationism posits that God went through a "chimera phase" 5-6 million years ago, mixing up human and ape features in various hominids, so he could have similarly gone through that sort of phase 300 or so million years ago with Tiktaalik and others.

lawtonfogle · Aug 24, 2009

peace4ever said:
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?" Every fiction writer tries to make his story believable so he bases his story on some aspect of reality and makes sure he dots every "i" and crosses every "t" so his story his consistent within his premise. Only there are so many holes in the story of evolution that it looks like the author fell asleep during his thought process. So the story of evolution beings like this:

"Once upon a time 500,000 years ago, no, 600,000 years ago, no 750,000 years ago...I'll forget the setting and go on. Once upon a long time ago an ape, no a monkey, no a half-human, half monkey...I'll skip that part too.

"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.

Needless to say, a story that hasn't started out well can't end well either. A badly written fiction story certainly can't make a good non-fiction story. When an author can't even describe his main characters, then he certainly can't know what kind of descendants they can produce! But what makes the story of evolution a delusion, is that Darwin actually believed his characters were real! It's bad enough when an author believes that the characters he conjures up in his imaginations are real, but when he doesn't even know who his main characters are, then he is even more delusional!

Nevertheless, this badly written fiction story has been accepted as true in the real world. Why? Because the secular world thinks that anyone with a degree must be right! So anything scientists say is blindly accepted by the world. Few people even question whether or not evolution even makes sense much less why it's impossible. Darwin simply made up this story in a desperate attempt to come up with an alternative to the biblical account of creation.

But the fact of the matter is, animals don't carry human DNA any more than humans carry animal DNA. So goats, turkeys, monkeys, zebras, skunks squirrels or fictitious animals can no more breed human descendants than humans can breed goats, monkeys, squirrels, zebras as descendants either whether over a gazillion years or 9 months. All one has to know is the simple birds and bees to know why.

So you can be rest assured, folks, that your descendants will be humans, not another species, least of all, a species superior to humans. Thus, the story of evolution is not only an accepted myth, it's the biggest hoax of the last 2 centuries.

Once you and your ID friends reach a conclusion, we can talk.

Also, you might want to take a class in DNA. Or biology in general .

The Darwin Delusion

Newbie

Natura non facit saltum

Newbie

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

you are not reading this.

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Senior Veteran

Drumming circles around you

Senior Veteran

The Lady Kate

Guest

Veteran

Legend

Veteran

Legend

Regular Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Veteran

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency