The Evolution Myth is Hilarious

[cyclorider]

The evolutionist believes the ancestors of human beings include:

a fish with fins
a fish with legs
a four-legged amphibian
a four-legged reptile
a species of dinosaur
a four-legged rodent with a tail

Got any pics of these "human ancestors?"

The evolutionist believes non-life created life, which is impossible according to factual science. Indeed, the Law of Biogenesis says life always comes from life -- without exception.

Can the evolutionist provide even one factual example of non-life creating life to justify their ridiculous belief system? The epic failure of the evolutionist is trying to prove science wrong... and failing repeatedly. Trying to prove that non-life can create life is like trying to prove the earth is flat or gravity doesn't exist. The evolutionist is 'easily led' to believe in such myths.

The evolutionist cannot prove that non-life created life, but has faith that it did. The evolutionist cannot prove that humans are the descendents of a fish, amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, rodent, and numerous mutants inbetween, but the evolutionist has faith that such creatures are humanity's ancestors. Pure faith. That's called religion. A pagan religion, but a religion nonetheless.

The entire foundation of evolution is a bizarre illogical mixture of myth and faith. Once upon a time, non-life created life... four-legged land mammals that look nothing like whales magically became whales... humans are the descendents of a certain dinosaur ... etc.

 

[BigBadWlf]

The evolutionist believes the ancestors of human beings include:

a fish with fins
a fish with legs
a four-legged amphibian
a four-legged reptile
a species of dinosaur
a four-legged rodent with a tail

Got any pics of these "human ancestors?"

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The evolutionist believes non-life created life,

False. You might want to educate yourself about evolution

which is impossible according to factual science. Indeed, the Law of Biogenesis says life always comes from life -- without exception.

The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur. Creationists often falsly describe the law of biogenesis as stating that life cannot come from non-life, it can only come from other life. This is a gross misrepresentation of the law. The law states that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria cannot appear fully formed. (IE they do not spontneiously spring into being. The church used ot teach that mice sponteniously appeared out of piles of old rags) The law says nothing about the biogenesis of very primitive life from increasingly complex molecules.

Can the evolutionist provide even one factual example of non-life creating life to justify their ridiculous belief system? The epic failure of the evolutionist is trying to prove science wrong... and failing repeatedly. Trying to prove that non-life can create life is like trying to prove the earth is flat or gravity doesn't exist. The evolutionist is 'easily led' to believe in such myths.

Again you might want to educate yourself about evolution.

On an intersting side note. There is current discussion among theoretical physisists stating that gravity does not exist in our universe but rather what gravity we have is borrowed from a neighboring parralel universe…thus explaining why gravity is so weak compared to the other field forces

The evolutionist cannot prove that non-life created life, but has faith that it did.

Not part of evolution

Again you would do well to actually learn something about evolution before posting

The evolutionist cannot prove that humans are the descendents of a fish, amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, rodent, and numerous mutants inbetween,

Actually…genetics and archeology shows that yes we are descended form other life forms

The entire foundation of evolution is a bizarre illogical mixture of myth and faith.

An interesting statement coming from a creationist

Once upon a time, non-life created life... four-legged land mammals that look nothing like whales magically became whales... humans are the descendents of a certain dinosaur ... etc.

Again you would do well to actually learn something about evolution before posting

 

[sfs]

The evolutionist believes the ancestors of human beings include:

a fish with fins
a fish with legs
a four-legged amphibian
a four-legged reptile
a species of dinosaur
a four-legged rodent with a tail

The first four, yes. The last two, no -- human ancestors did not include either dinosaurs or humans. It's really a good idea to have some idea of what you're talking about before you start to criticize something.

Got any pics of these "human ancestors?"

There are plenty of pictures of various fossils from the long history of life on earth.

The evolutionist believes non-life created life,

"Evolutionists" presumably means people who accept evolution. Evolution doesn't say anything about where life came from; it's a description of how and why life has changed over time.

which is impossible according to factual science. Indeed, the Law of Biogenesis says life always comes from life -- without exception.

It's fairly silly for a nonscientist to tell scientists what is and what isn't possible according to science. Trying to turn an empirical observation about the failure of life to spontaneously appear within a few weeks in a flask into a general rule about the behavior of the universe is beyond silly. No scientist would take that kind of generalization seriously.

[More origin of life stuff deleted]

The evolutionist cannot prove that non-life created life, but has faith that it did. The evolutionist cannot prove that humans are the descendents of a fish, amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, rodent, and numerous mutants inbetween, but the evolutionist has faith that such creatures are humanity's ancestors. Pure faith. That's called religion. A pagan religion, but a religion nonetheless.

Scientists can provide enormous amounts of evidence that humans are indeed descended from a series of pre-human ancestors. How much of this evidence have you looked at?

The entire foundation of evolution is a bizarre illogical mixture of myth and faith. Once upon a time, non-life created life... four-legged land mammals that look nothing like whales magically became whales... humans are the descendents of a certain dinosaur ... etc.

Evolution is a theory that explains an enormous range of data of many kinds, including fossil remains, biogeography and genetics, and that routinely predicts new observations. As a scientific theory it has been wildly successful, which is why it is accepted by the overwhelming majority of biologists, whatever their religious beliefs. You should try learning about the subject sometime, rather than just mocking what you don't understand.

 

[Belk]

The evolutionist believes the ancestors of human beings include:

a fish with fins
a fish with legs
a four-legged amphibian
a four-legged reptile
a species of dinosaur
a four-legged rodent with a tail

Got any pics of these "human ancestors?"

The evolutionist believes non-life created life, which is impossible according to factual science. Indeed, the Law of Biogenesis says life always comes from life -- without exception.

Can the evolutionist provide even one factual example of non-life creating life to justify their ridiculous belief system? The epic failure of the evolutionist is trying to prove science wrong... and failing repeatedly. Trying to prove that non-life can create life is like trying to prove the earth is flat or gravity doesn't exist. The evolutionist is 'easily led' to believe in such myths.

The evolutionist cannot prove that non-life created life, but has faith that it did. The evolutionist cannot prove that humans are the descendents of a fish, amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, rodent, and numerous mutants inbetween, but the evolutionist has faith that such creatures are humanity's ancestors. Pure faith. That's called religion. A pagan religion, but a religion nonetheless.

The entire foundation of evolution is a bizarre illogical mixture of myth and faith. Once upon a time, non-life created life... four-legged land mammals that look nothing like whales magically became whales... humans are the descendents of a certain dinosaur ... etc.

So... religion and faith are bad things now?

Tell you what, we will keep looking for answers. You can feel free to try compacting God into whatever kind of small box makes you feel comfortable.

 

[sbvera13]

post n run, and PRATT

Another creationist giving creationists a good name

 

[cyclorider]

Tiktaalik

Simply posting a link to an artist's rendition of a lobe-finned fish species is not proof, nor evidence, that said creature is ancestral to human beings. You have to prove it. Not just believe it. That's why evolution is a faith system -- a religion.

False. You might want to educate yourself about evolution

Yes. The evolutionist does believe that non-life created life, which is a faith system standing firmly on an unscientific premise.

The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur. Creationists often falsly describe the law of biogenesis as stating that life cannot come from non-life, it can only come from other life. This is a gross misrepresentation of the law. The law states that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria cannot appear fully formed. The law says nothing about the biogenesis of very primitive life from increasingly complex molecules.

The Law of Biogenesis simply states Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for, "all life from life". What do the words "all life" mean? All life. It's a Law of science. Factual and provable. Unlike the belief system of the evolutionist, which is akin to Greek myth.

"The ancient Greeks believed that living things could spontaneously come into being from nonliving matter, and that the goddess Gaia could make life arise spontaneously from stones – a process known as Generatio spontanea."
--Wikipedia

Remarkably similar.

Again you might want to educate yourself about evolution.

On an intersting side note. There is current discussion among theoretical physisists stating that gravity does not exist in our universe but rather what gravity we have is borrowed from a neighboring parralel universe…thus explaining why gravity is so weak compared to the other field forces

Interesting.

Not part of evolution

Non-life creating life is the foundation of the atheistic evolutionist. It's also biologically and chemically impossible.

Again you would do well to actually learn something about evolution before posting

I have. It's a series of just-so faith stories for the easily led.

Actually…genetics and archeology shows that yes we are descended form other life forms

No.

The mere biological similarities common to life on earth is not proof that human beings are the descendents of a fish, a four-legged amphibian, a four-legged reptile, a dinosaur, a rodent, and numerous mutants inbetween (trying not to laugh here). Nor does archeology prove it either. Assumptions are not proof.

interesting statement coming from a creationist

The creationist believes that fish are fish, amphibians are amphibians, reptiles are reptiles, mammals are mammals, humans are humans etc. There is variation. There is speciation. There was an original Canidae pair, an original Felidae pair, an original Elephantidae pair etc. that gave rise to all others in the family. But.... fish do not turn into amphibians, amphibians do not turn into reptiles, reptiles do not turn into mammals, and humans have always been human!

If evolution were an inherent aspect of animal biology, there would be thousands of inbetween creatures today. It would be the intrinsic nature of animals to mutate and move on to the next form... Who's to say that species of fish you caught at the beach will one day have human, t-rex, panda bear and hummingbird descendents? The evolutionist actually believes this stuff. Oh wait. It was just this magical fish in the beginning! There will never be another magical fish like that again! There's the inconsistency. Proof that it's an illogical fantasy.

Again you would do well to actually learn something about evolution before posting

I have, and evolution is a myth.

 

[sbvera13]

But.... fish do not turn into amphibians...

Ummm.... really?

Amphibious fish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go get an education please. Your arguments are refuted by 8th-grade level biology.

Unless, of course, evidence and facts are not what you care about. Perhaps what you care about is promoting your literal interpretation of the bible, or you mistakenly associate evolution with various social ills. Possibly you think that insulting 99% of your audience is some kind of preaching, or that you are doing a holy service by offending everyone that cares to listen to you. If this is correct, please be honest and say so. We will be happy to address these larger, root issues if you would like, and not dance drunkenly around word definitions and standards of evidence like lawyers on LSD. Please, speak to the heart of the issue so we can have at it.

 

[Freodin]

I really don´t have problems with people who don´t accept various scientific theories. It is their prerogative to accept or reject anything they like... reasonable or not.

But I DO have problems with people who misrepresent scientific theories in order to reject them... and then claim that they are oh so knowledgable about that topic, that they have learned and studied, and that the nonsense-strawman that they garble about is indeed what others say.

Sadly, I have yet to find a way to solve these problems. It seems impossible to get to these people and explain to them that the points that they reject, that they attack so viciously, are simply not the real McCoy.

 

[cyclorider]

The first four, yes. The last two, no -- human ancestors did not include either dinosaurs or humans.

The evolutionist believes the ancestors of human beings include a fish, fish with legs, four-legged amphibian, four-legged reptile, a species of dinosaur, a rodent with a tail, etc.

If the evolutionist doesn't believe humans have a dinosaur ancestor, then please tell us about the "reptile ancestor of humanity" that lived in the age of the dinosaurs!

There are plenty of pictures of various fossils from the long history of life on earth.

Illustrations, accompanied by just-so stories. I've seen pictures of actual fossils as well and zero of them prove evolution in the macro sense. When you peel back the rhetoric, what you have are a series of just-so stories based on a belief system, not facts.

"Evolutionists" presumably means people who accept evolution. Evolution doesn't say anything about where life came from; it's a description of how and why life has changed over time.

The evolution myth doesn't say life came from non-life.
The evolutionist does.
The evolution myth is the only belief system that lends itself to the illogical and unscientific belief in non-life creating life. So much for establishing credibility from the get-go. Take a mythical foundation and build on it.

It's fairly silly for a nonscientist to tell scientists what is and what isn't possible according to science. Trying to turn an empirical observation about the failure of life to spontaneously appear within a few weeks in a flask into a general rule about the behavior of the universe is beyond silly. No scientist would take that kind of generalization seriously.

Scientists do take the principle of 'life always from life' seriously. It's a Law without exception in the natural world. When a scientist sees life, he knows it came from another life. The concept of non-living matter giving rise to living matter is unscientific and impossible. Yet it's the foundation of the evolutionist's belief system. That's a foundation of quicksand, but those who are easily led will follow...

Scientists can provide enormous amounts of evidence that humans are indeed descended from a series of pre-human ancestors. How much of this evidence have you looked at?

australopithecines = fully ape (mostly knuckle-walker, not fully bipedal)
homo erectus = fully human

Evolution is a theory that explains an enormous range of data of many kinds, including fossil remains, biogeography and genetics, and that routinely predicts new observations. As a scientific theory it has been wildly successful, which is why it is accepted by the overwhelming majority of biologists, whatever their religious beliefs. You should try learning about the subject sometime, rather than just mocking what you don't understand.

But the explanations aren't factual. They're presumed. The factual, useful data comes from real speciation, real genetics, real natural selection and biological similarities common to life on earth. Not the myth of "reptile's descendents gradually morph into human beings after pausing to become rodents for a while."

 

[tanzanos]

The evolutionist believes non-life created life, which is impossible according to factual science. Indeed, the Law of Biogenesis says life always comes from life -- without exception.

Can the evolutionist provide even one factual example of non-life creating life to justify their ridiculous belief system?

First of all The Theory of Evolution says no such thing. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Evolution.

Secondly; Can you show me one chemical or element or compound that constitutes your body that is living? In case you did not know; All the chemicals and elements that make up your body are non living! This alone proves that life comes from non life!

Now please read the Theory of Evolution before you make assumptions!

Jesus did say after all "Judge not lest you be judged in return".

 

[Ryal Kane]

cyclorider, I;m going to give you the benefit of the doubt as a new poster, though your attitude does seem to be rather hostile.

Imagine this hypothetical situation:
Someone tell you that they don't believe in christianity becasue they find the idea of Flying Purple Pumpkins to be ridiculous.
You point out that Christianity has nothing to do with Flying Purple Pumpkins.
They continue to assert that it does, ignoring anything you say to the contrary.

Now ii would be pretty obvious to you that the person in question has a very distorted view of what christianity is. You would try and correct his misunderstandings and hope he took them on board.


The same applies to the theory of evolution. You've come to the board and started making claims about what people believe. They have corrected you, saying that's not what we believe at all. You continue to make the same assertions. Essentially you're making an argument about Flying Purple Pumpkins.

Before any progress can be made in the discussion, you need to admit that there are things about the theory of evolution you don't know or understand. There's no shame in admitting this. All of us have many areas of knowledge we are lacking in. But we would be arrogant and foolish to dismiss those knowledgable in the field off hand.

If you are willing to learn and properly discuss ideas then you will be welcomed here but if you continue to repeat the same strawman arguments people will quickly give up on trying to talk reasonably with you.

I'm no scientist. I'm a writer. But consider this: In all my life I have never met a creationist who correctly understood the theory of evolution. They always believed in flawed, strawman versions of the theory. Seldom would they ever admit to their own missunderstanding. Instead they continued to make the same assertions despite correction. They argued against Flying Purple Pumpkins.

I sincerely hope you will have the humility and honesty to avoid doing the same.
http://www.christianforums.com/users/260291/

 

[sbvera13]

Poetic in a twisted way, but the Flying Purple Pumpkin version of evolution actually has more in common with creationism.

Stange, impossible ideas about hybrid animals such as the crocoduck?

Species appearing suddenly, with no forebearers or ancestors?

Sudden, magical appearance of animals fully formed as if by magic?

Life appearing from non-life?

These are all things creationism teaches, and yet the creationist will strawman these things into evolution, and then call them ridiculous. All the while they never seem to realize that their own position is the one they are ridiculing. God creating all the animals on Earth IS MAGIC. It's miraculous. It defies all laws of physics and known science. It makes no sense to put down this method so you can in turn support the same method, and reveals just how little you know about both sides.

 

[Freodin]

Life from non-life...

... this shows a quite alchemistical understanding of "life", as if "life" is some secret ingredient to the soup of chemicals that it need to be "a living soul". It is an old way of understanding "life", a traditional way and, yes, a religious way.

But it is not necessarily the correct way.

Let´s take an example. Let´s take a spring. Main property of a spring: its elasticity. The very definition of a spring. Its elasticity is from the material, it is even called "spring steel".

But heat it, beat it, treat it in a certain way... and it is no longer elastic. The spring has lost its elasticity, just like a dead human has lost its life.

Does that mean that there is some ingredience "elasticity" that is put in or taken away from the steel?
No, the elasticity of steel depends solely on its chemical setup. Iron with a certain amount of carbon (and a few other elements) will be elastic. Other mixtures won´t.

And none of the chemicals involved is elastic! Elasticity came from non-elasticity.

Elasticity is not an ingredience, but an emergent property of a certain (rather simple) chemical system.

Just as life is not an ingredience, but an emergent property of a certain (rather more complex) chemeical system.

 

[sfs]

The evolutionist believes the ancestors of human beings include a fish, fish with legs, four-legged amphibian, four-legged reptile, a species of dinosaur, a rodent with a tail, etc.

If the evolutionist doesn't believe humans have a dinosaur ancestor, then please tell us about the "reptile ancestor of humanity" that lived in the age of the dinosaurs!

The "reptile ancestor of humanity" that lived in the age of the dinosaurs was a group called the therapsids. Look them up -- there's a perfectly good Wikipedia entry on them, or look them up in any encyclopedia. Learn something. They were not dinosaurs.

Illustrations, accompanied by just-so stories. I've seen pictures of actual fossils as well and zero of them prove evolution in the macro sense. When you peel back the rhetoric, what you have are a series of just-so stories based on a belief system, not facts.

If you didn't want pictures of the supposed ancestors, why did you ask for pictures of the supposed ancestors? If you want the reasons why scientists think they were ancestors, ask that question.

The evolution myth doesn't say life came from non-life.
The evolutionist does.

I'm an "evolutionist", in the sense that studying evolution is one of the things that I do for a living. I do not say that life came from non-life. I say that we do not currently have a scientific explanation for how life started (although we have some very interesting hypotheses). Please stop telling other people what they say when you don't know what you're talking about. Your combination of arrogance and ignorance is not much of a Christian witness.

Scientists do take the principle of 'life always from life' seriously. It's a Law without exception in the natrual world. When a scientist sees life, he knows it came from another life. The concept of non-living matter giving rise to living matter is unscientific and impossible. Yet it's the foundation of the evolutionist's belief system. That's a foundation of quicksand, but those who are easily led will follow...

Total nonsense. Why are you doing this? I mean just making stuff up and stating it as fact. I am a biologist. I do not take the principle of "life always from life seriously", and neither does any other biologist I've ever met. Sure, the "Law of Biogenesis" is stated as a scientific law, but scientific principles that are stated as "laws" have several things in common: they tend to be empirical relationships, they were formulated over a century ago, and they're wrong.

australopithecines = fully ape (mostly knuckle-walker, not fully bipedal)
homo erectus = fully human

You didn't answer my question. How much of the evidence have you looked at? Are you familiar with ERVs, for example? Are you familiar with this evidence?

But the explanations aren't factual. They're presumed. The factual, useful data comes from real speciation, real genetics, real natural selection and biological similarities common to life on earth. Not the myth of "reptile's descendents gradually morph into human beings after pausing to become rodents for a while."

How would you know that? How many papers have you published on genetics or natural selection?

 

[tanzanos]

Stange, impossible ideas about hybrid animals such as the crocoduck?

You talking to me?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The evolutionist believes the ancestors of human beings include:

a fish with fins
a fish with legs
a four-legged amphibian
a four-legged reptile
a species of dinosaur
a four-legged rodent with a tail

Got any pics of these "human ancestors?"

The evolutionist believes non-life created life, which is impossible according to factual science. Indeed, the Law of Biogenesis says life always comes from life -- without exception.

Can the evolutionist provide even one factual example of non-life creating life to justify their ridiculous belief system? The epic failure of the evolutionist is trying to prove science wrong... and failing repeatedly. Trying to prove that non-life can create life is like trying to prove the earth is flat or gravity doesn't exist. The evolutionist is 'easily led' to believe in such myths.

The evolutionist cannot prove that non-life created life, but has faith that it did. The evolutionist cannot prove that humans are the descendents of a fish, amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, rodent, and numerous mutants inbetween, but the evolutionist has faith that such creatures are humanity's ancestors. Pure faith. That's called religion. A pagan religion, but a religion nonetheless.

The entire foundation of evolution is a bizarre illogical mixture of myth and faith. Once upon a time, non-life created life... four-legged land mammals that look nothing like whales magically became whales... humans are the descendents of a certain dinosaur ... etc.

I know how you feel. I feel the same way about ancient, bronze age literature, that people take as literal fact.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Simply posting a link to an artist's rendition of a lobe-finned fish species is not proof, nor evidence, that said creature is ancestral to human beings. You have to prove it. Not just believe it.

You only asked for a picture…don’t go changing the goal posts just because people can answer your nonsense


Yes. The evolutionist does believe that non-life created life, which is a faith system standing firmly on an unscientific premise.

The Law of Biogenesis simply states Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for, "all life from life". What do the words "all life" mean? All life. It's a Law of science. Factual and provable. Unlike the belief system of the evolutionist, which is akin to Greek myth.

You obviously have never read what Pasteur wrote

I’m not surprised actually

Non-life creating life is the foundation of the atheistic evolutionist. It's also biologically and chemically impossible.

First - I’m not an atheist

Second - its still not part of evolution


Third- it happened…so not that impossible

I have. It's a series of just-so faith stories for the easily led.

Yes your lack of knowledge is apparent to everyone

No.

The mere biological similarities common to life on earth is not proof that human beings are the descendents of a fish, a four-legged amphibian, a four-legged reptile, a dinosaur, a rodent, and numerous mutants inbetween (trying not to laugh here). Nor does archeology prove it either.

Evidence is evidence even if you choose to stick your head in the sane and refuse to look at it

Assumptions are not proof.

Interesting claim for a creationist

The creationist believes that fish are fish, amphibians are amphibians, reptiles are reptiles, mammals are mammals, humans are humans etc. There is variation. There is speciation. There was an original Canidae pair, an original Felidae pair, an original Elephantidae pair etc. that gave rise to all others in the family. But.... fish do not turn into amphibians, amphibians do not turn into reptiles, reptiles do not turn into mammals, and humans have always been human!

And all those transitional fossils are fakes planted there by the same people who make those crop circles

If evolution were an inherent aspect of animal biology, there would be thousands of inbetween creatures today.

There are…pretty much everything is

It would be the intrinsic nature of animals to mutate and move on to the next form...

If you had a basic knowledge of genetics you would know just how fast that happens too

Who's to say that species of fish you caught at the beach will one day have human, t-rex, panda bear and hummingbird descendents?

What ever that might evolve into would be something new

The evolutionist actually believes this stuff. Oh wait. It was just this magical fish in the beginning! There will never be another magical fish like that again! There's the inconsistency. Proof that it's an illogical fantasy.

Again you would really do well to actually learn something about evolution before posting nonsense like this

I have, and evolution is a myth.

You are obviously uninformed about evolution

 

[Split Rock]

The evolutionist believes the ancestors of human beings include:

a fish with fins

Yes

a fish with legs

Yes, see tiktaalik and other fishapods from the Devonian Period.

a four-legged amphibian

Yes, btw, all amphibians are "4-legged."

a four-legged reptile

yes. most reptiles are "4-legged."

a species of dinosaur

No. You are probably thinking of early therapsids, such as the cynodonts.

a four-legged rodent with a tail

No, our early mammal relatives were not true rodents, though they may have looked like them. Guess what? We still have a tail (its called a coccyx or tailbone) http://www.quranandscience.com/images/stories/coccyx.jpg I wonder why....

Got any pics of these "human ancestors?"

Sure.
http://student.physics.upenn.edu/~aebrown/biocurious/tiktaalik-reproduction.jpg
http://i.livescience.com/images/090511-cynognathus-09.jpg
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Hominids/homo erectus.gif

The evolutionist believes non-life created life, which is impossible according to factual science. Indeed, the Law of Biogenesis says life always comes from life -- without exception.

You know I don't remember being taught the "law of biogenesis" in biology class... do you?

Can the evolutionist provide even one factual example of non-life creating life to justify their ridiculous belief system? The epic failure of the evolutionist is trying to prove science wrong... and failing repeatedly. Trying to prove that non-life can create life is like trying to prove the earth is flat or gravity doesn't exist. The evolutionist is 'easily led' to believe in such myths.

The epic fail of armchair-creationists like yourself is trying to prove science wrong. Not just biology, but astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics, chemistry, paleontology, linguistics, archeology, anthropology... etc. the list goes on. Don't kid yourself.. you are not on the side of "science."

The evolutionist cannot prove that non-life created life, but has faith that it did. The evolutionist cannot prove that humans are the descendents of a fish, amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, rodent, and numerous mutants inbetween, but the evolutionist has faith that such creatures are humanity's ancestors. Pure faith. That's called religion. A pagan religion, but a religion nonetheless.

Common descent is inferred by all the physical evidence. This includes, biogeography, embryology and development, biochemistry, genetics, anatomy, and paleontology. What do you have in support of creationism? Your particular interpretation of scripture, based on your narrow and inflexible religious dogma. Period.

The entire foundation of evolution is a bizarre illogical mixture of myth and faith. Once upon a time, non-life created life... four-legged land mammals that look nothing like whales magically became whales... humans are the descendents of a certain dinosaur ... etc.

Is that a criticism? Magic and dinosaurs? Funny how you consider natural selection and genetic drift to be "magic." I would consider a superbeing blowing life into a pile of dirt to be "magic." Or maybe a talking snake.

Simply posting a link to an artist's rendition of a lobe-finned fish species is not proof, nor evidence, that said creature is ancestral to human beings. You have to prove it. Not just believe it. That's why evolution is a faith system -- a religion.

We don't "prove" anything in science. The theory of evolution explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth. All the physical evidence supports it and none of the physical evidence has falsified it. If you think you can falsify it, go right ahead. Your Nobel prize will be waiting for you in Stockholm.

It's sad how you people have now decided to reject "faith," and "religion" as somehow bad. It takes alot of mental twisting to continue to believe in creationism, doesn't it?

Yes. The evolutionist does believe that non-life created life, which is a faith system standing firmly on an unscientific premise.

Abiogensis is specified by a number of hypotheses which are still being tested today. No one hypothesis has come out on top yet. Experiments and physical evidence will continue to decide if any are correct. Thus, there is no faith involved.

The Law of Biogenesis simply states Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for, "all life from life". What do the words "all life" mean? All life. It's a Law of science. Factual and provable. Unlike the belief system of the evolutionist, which is akin to Greek myth.

Does it include a talking snake? I love myths with talking snakes.

The ancient Greeks believed that living things could spontaneously come into being from nonliving matter, and that the goddess Gaia could make life arise spontaneously from stones – a process known as Generatio spontanea."

Remarkably similar.

Not to abiogenesis. S.G. was the sudden appearance of complex lifeforms. Abiogenesis is the chemical evolution of organic molecules into primitive self-replicators that evovled into primitive cells. This took a long time, under a reducing atmosphere which we do not have today.

Now lets look at creationism. A God blew into some dirt and out popped Adam. Sounds more like spontaneous generation to me.

Non-life creating life is the foundation of the atheistic evolutionist. It's also biologically and chemically impossible.

Prove it.

I have. It's a series of just-so faith stories for the easily led.

Scientists are not so easily led. Creationists, are a different story.

The mere biological similarities common to life on earth is not proof that human beings are the descendents of a fish, a four-legged amphibian, a four-legged reptile, a dinosaur, a rodent, and numerous mutants inbetween (trying not to laugh here). [/SIZE][/FONT]Nor does archeology prove it either. Assumptions are not proof.

Again, we don't do "proof" in science. Common descent is inferred by all the evidence. It is not "assumed."

The creationist believes that fish are fish, amphibians are amphibians, reptiles are reptiles, mammals are mammals, humans are humans etc. There is variation. There is speciation. There was an original Canidae pair, an original Felidae pair, an original Elephantidae pair etc. that gave rise to all others in the family. But.... fish do not turn into amphibians, amphibians do not turn into reptiles, reptiles do not turn into mammals, and humans have always been human!

Fish are fish, huh? Are sharks and rays "fish?" How about eels? How about hagfish and lampreys?

Show me a list of all these created kinds, that you are referring to.

If evolution were an inherent aspect of animal biology, there would be thousands of inbetween creatures today. It would be the intrinsic nature of animals to mutate and move on to the next form...

Who's to say that species of fish you caught at the beach will one day have human, t-rex, panda bear and hummingbird descendents? The evolutionist actually believes this stuff. Oh wait. It was just this magical fish in the beginning! There will never be another magical fish like that again! There's the inconsistency. Proof that it's an illogical fantasy.

There are not thousands of intermediates today (though they are in the fossil record) because of something called extinction.

I have, and evolution is a myth.

Define "myth." Does it include a story about a Man made from dirt, a woman from a rib, a talking snake, and a Tree of Knowledge that lets you know if you are naked if you eat its fruit? How about a flaming sword? I like the myths with a flaming sword...

 

[BigBadWlf]

The evolutionist believes the ancestors of human beings include a fish, fish with legs, four-legged amphibian, four-legged reptile, a species of dinosaur, a rodent with a tail, etc.

If the evolutionist doesn't believe humans have a dinosaur ancestor, then please tell us about the "reptile ancestor of humanity" that lived in the age of the dinosaurs!

Dinosaurs weren’t reptiles - again you should educate yourself

The evolution myth doesn't say life came from non-life.

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life - again you should educate yourself

The evolution myth is the only belief system that lends itself to the illogical and unscientific belief in non-life creating life. So much for establishing credibility from the get-go. Take a mythical foundation and build on it.

You are expressing a creationists view - again you should educate yourself

Scientists do take the principle of 'life always from life' seriously. It's a Law without exception in the natrual world.

A law you are misrepresenting - again you should educate yourself

australopithecines = fully ape (mostly knuckle-walker, not fully bipedal)

Australopithecus was bipedal - again you should educate yourself

homo erectus = fully human

Except their brains were 20% smaller

 

[tanzanos]

Yes. The evolutionist does believe that non-life created life, which is a faith system standing firmly on an unscientific premise.

I Challenge you to name me one living chemical, metal, element, compound; that constitutes a living thing. All living things are made up of non living things.

I challenge you to name me one!

Before you answer read my question carefully so that you do not come up with something silly like "the heart" or some other organ.

I challenge you now and here!

(Sombre music playing while we await his answer).

By the way in case you did not know: We are so closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos that we can in fact we can transfuse blood between the species! This would not be possible if we were not closely related.