Why evolution is not true

[Nostromo]

Over the past few decades, the dominant dogma developed for these
periods perceives little or no cultural change or evolution throughout the Lower
Paleolithic, roughly from 2.5 million years ago to 180,000 years ago. It defines
this time as static, and sees little change even in the subsequent Middle
Paleolithic, which ends 40,000 BP in much of Eurasia, 20,000 BP in Africa and
only a few thousand years ago in Australia. Then, with the advent of the Upper
Paleolithic, the dogma perceives a cataclysmic ‘bottleneck’, a ‘quantum jump’, an
‘explosion’: all the typically human characteristics that distinguish us from other
animals appeared suddenly and at once — and, of course, in western Europe:
art, language, complex social systems, self‐awareness, forward planning and
symboling.

This model is rejected here on the basis of the hard evidence, according to
which the development of human cognition was a gradual process that occurred
throughout the Pleistocene period. This evidence consists of indications of
complex pre‐meditated human behavior (such as the colonization of land only
accessible by sea crossings) and the cognition (e.g. language) and technology
demanded by it; the use of coloring materials; the use and making of beads and
pendants; the production of engravings; and the introduction of the concept of
iconicity (of referrer and referent, i.e. signs).

http://vip.db.dk/signs/Articles_Sig... _2008_ The origin of symboling - revised.pdf

 

[Research1]

I think this is a distortion. Throughout those 2.5 million years, stone tool technology did evolve - and the only thing you really know about culture, besides the tools, is the lack of lasting artwork (which appeared well before the Neolithic Revolution anyway). Besides, these 2.5 million years also saw quite a bit of biological evolution in our ancestors. H. sapiens is restricted to the last tenth of the period. Surely you are not arguing that the ability to make stone tools should necessarily lead to the invention of agriculture?

For 2.5 million years there was no technological process. Hominids were incredibly primitive. Sometimes you hear of a new discovery which proves they slightly developed in some area, for example i believe a Neanderthal 'flute' was discovered in Europe some years ago. It just was a very crude bone however, with three holes made inside of it to blow through.

Then suddenly only around 15, 000 - 10, 000 years ago man suddenly began to build, domesticate animals, farm etc. Evolutionists have failed to explain why, and they lack a progress pattern in their view that this was a transition. The creationist alternitive explains why man suddenly appeared the way he did, because he was not from the same linage of the Hominids.

It may make sense if you discount all the anatomical evidence that connects you to those earlier hominins.

I've heard all these before, evolutionists bring up about DNA similarity etc. What they forget to tell you though is that fruit flies, cabages and bananas have 60% of the same DNA as modern man. Does this mean we evolved from fruits and bananas?

(And, erm, hunter-gatherers still exist. If you told them that they are primitives and you can't be the same lineage as them, I don't know if they'd be offended or relieved...)

Those are clearly primitives who were never replaced and have been left isolated, they are remnant populations of former creations, a possible example may be the Australian Aborigines.

My hypothesis is that God created modern man in six or seven different zones across the earth, and that is those main areas they began to replace mostly the primitive former creations in those zones.

Creationism only works if it is polygenist.

 

[Naraoia]

For 2.5 million years there was no technological process. Hominids were incredibly primitive. Sometimes you hear of a new discovery which proves they slightly developed in some area, for example i believe a Neanderthal 'flute' was discovered in Europe some years ago. It just was a very crude bone however, with three holes made inside of it to blow through.

You continuously belittle any sign of cultural evolution before your pet Neolithic Revolution. I'm sorry, but your personal dismissal is not an argument that no progress happened. Are you seriously telling me that this is "no progress"?

Then suddenly only around 15, 000 - 10, 000 years ago man suddenly began to build, domesticate animals, farm etc. Evolutionists have failed to explain why, and they lack a progress pattern in their view that this was a transition. The creationist alternitive explains why man suddenly appeared the way he did, because he was not from the same linage of the Hominids.

You stated all of this before. Do you have nothing to say about my reply?

I've heard all these before, evolutionists bring up about DNA similarity etc. What they forget to tell you though is that fruit flies, cabages and bananas have 60% of the same DNA as modern man. Does this mean we evolved from fruits and bananas?

You demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of the nature of phylogenetic evidence here. The pattern of DNA similarity shows that these creatures share a common ancestor. It doesn't imply that one evolved from the other.

Whether Homo erectus and H. sapiens are evolutionary mother and daughter or just cousins is completely irrelevant, though, since either allows that the latter evolved from something similar to the former, whereas you claim that modern humans were created separately.

Those are clearly primitives who were never replaced and have been left isolated, they are remnant populations of former creations, a possible example may be the Australian Aborigines.

The ability of members of hunter-gatherer societies to live in a "civilised" society kind of speaks against that... notion.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Have you ever wondered why Jesus did not have a mobile phone?

Few good options for rate plans?

 

[Nostromo]

I bet the reception was terrible too.

 

[1611AV]

Have you ever wondered why Jesus did not have a mobile phone?

According to the Bible in the Book of Job, one of the oldest books, God tells us He already has the technology.

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

Guess they weren't ready for it at the time.

 

[3sigma]

So if I went out on the street and stopped people at random and asked, "How long have Homo sapiens actually been around?"; most would automatically answer, "At least 200,000 years."

Probably not, but then most of those people are probably going to be religious believers.

 

[AV1611VET]

According to the Bible in the Book of Job, one of the oldest books, God tells us He already has the technology.

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

Guess they weren't ready for it at the time.

He even gave us His number: Jeremiah 333 !

Jeremiah 33:3 Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.

 

[1611AV]

He even gave us His number: Jeremiah 333 !

Jeremiah 33:3 Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.

I mean how much evidence do some people need?

 

[USincognito]

I think this is a distortion. Throughout those 2.5 million years, stone tool technology did evolve - and the only thing you really know about culture, besides the tools, is the lack of lasting artwork (which appeared well before the Neolithic Revolution anyway). Besides, these 2.5 million years also saw quite a bit of biological evolution in our ancestors. H. sapiens is restricted to the last tenth of the period. Surely you are not arguing that the ability to make stone tools should necessarily lead to the invention of agriculture?

It's like he's completely unfamiliar with Stone Age technology.
Stone tool - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lithic technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nathan Poe]

I bet the reception was terrible too.

And he was always roaming.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I mean how much evidence do some people need?

First of all, AV1611VET doesn't believe in the "e" word, and second, you're better off not encouraging him by letting him think his response was Biblically sound and/or witty.

 

[Nostromo]

And he was always roaming.

[youtube]bcYppAs6ZdI[/youtube]

 

[Lillen]

The reason i have faith in God and believe that he created the world, is because I don't want to be evil... I don't want to be a sinner... I want to be forgiven all my sins and sanctified, and washed clean from my sin. Now it is possible to have faith that Jesus forgives you and still believe in evolution and science, but i believe you will face that day when you as a believer have to choose between what the world teaches you and what God teaches you.

I been there done that, earlier in life i believed that God created man through evolution, i also believed God created the universe through big bang... I also believe that demonpossession was synonomous with modern mental diseases. to day i've reliezed that it's all vanity.

I accept the word of God as infalliable without any errors, without any contradictions wihtout any fault what so ever...

 

[Nostromo]

The reason i have faith in God and believe that he created the world, is because I don't want to be evil...

You can make that choice whether you believe in God or not. You are in control of your own actions.