Why the theistic evolution position is both unbiblical and impossible

[Keachian]

"nevermind the fact that we had originally started to give the other levels names."

And since 1859 what names belonging to REAL organisms fill in those dotted lines?

Haikouichthys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pteraspida - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Myllokunmingia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forget it. I'd rather communicate with those who have not shut down their critical thinking process and blindly accepted the lies of neo-Darwinian thought.

Well, that wouldn't be me then, there's no blindly about it, nor is there a shut down of critical thinking processes, however when I was a creationist my critical thinking in regards to biology was out the window.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

My pictures vanished. I will try again later.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Haikouichthys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pteraspida - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Myllokunmingia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Well, that wouldn't be me then, there's no blindly about it, nor is there a shut down of critical thinking processes, however when I was a creationist my critical thinking in regards to biology was out the window.

Baloney. You shut your mind down and you can't discern the truth in this matter because of that mental mind-conditioning.

But for the rest of the readers who still possess their critical thinking skills:

Quote: Haikouichthys the animal is probably a basal chordate or a basal craniate; but it does not possess sufficient features to be included uncontroversially even in either stem group (Wikipedia)

Quote: Pteraspida, -'head sheild of fused bony plates (limited flexibility)'. There is very little information on this creature. He is a vertebrate.

Quote: Myllokunmingia - a primitive fish-like chordate from the Lower CambrianMaotianshan shales of China, thought to be a vertebrate. It appears to have a skull and skeletal structures made of cartilage

That means that they do not know for they cannot discern it through the fossils discovered. Some 'science' huh?

Now, where is the genetic formula I requested that links these organisms to those they supposedly evolved from....or into as may be the case. Progmonk didn't give us that. But if that link can't be made then how can anyone honestly call this 'science'. Yet, common sense tells us if they can't make a link between man (homo) and his 'common ancestor' (hominini?) then how in the world will they make genetic links that should be an obvious and easily proved result of the phylogeny?

progmonk is faking it. But like his companions in error that's the best they can do.

 

[Assyrian]

While Darwin used the term "race" to refer to groups i.e. races of cabbage, he probably used it to apply to human ethnic groups as well.

He does use the term race for human too, but the argument is that it is 'the preservation of favoured races' that is racist, but Darwin wasn't talking about humans in The Origin of Species, so he was hardly proclaiming Anglo-Saxons as a favoured race.

We can't really deny that social Darwinism had nothing to do with evolution.

Sure there is a connection, it just isn't the evolution Darwin taught, nor was he responsible for the attitudes of social Darwinism, which is simply the greed of Victorian laissez faire capitalism.

Literature.org - The Online Literature Library

``Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.
``Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
``And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. ``Are they still in operation?''
``They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.''
``The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.
``Both very busy, sir.''
``Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. ``I'm very glad to hear it.''
``Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,'' returned the gentleman, ``a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?''
``Nothing!'' Scrooge replied.
``You wish to be anonymous?''
``I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge. ``Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''
``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''
``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.
Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol, 1843,
​

That was 16 years before Darwin published The Origin of Species. Social Darwinists latched onto evolution, but it was simply as another rationalisation of a callous selfishness that was already there in society.

Of course, Darwin being a racist (as practically every white male in the 19th century was) doesn't disprove evolution.

I agree it wouldn't disprove evolution even if it were true, but I don't buy that it is true. It is anachronistic to measure people against the standard of a different time, can you really call people of that era who devoted their lives to the abolition of slavery, who stood against the brutal abuse of their fellow men racists? There is much we have learned since then and ignoring it now will rightly label us racist, but you can't back date what we have built on from the work of these early human rights campaigners, and then label them racists.

The question we need to ask to know if someone was racist is where they stood on with fault lines of their day. Darwin was horrified at the treatment of slaves he saw in his travels and described slavery as a terrible crime. Don't forget when he wrote about the horrors he saw, his very act of exposing it was campaigning against it. The rational of slavers at that time was that their slaves were a completely different species, to be treated like you do cattle. Darwin's book Descent of Man overturned that and showed we are all one species, all human beings, and that the differences we see are superficial and negligible.

Many terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity, but that doesn't negate the existance of Jesus.

Indeed

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Sure there is a connection, it just isn't the evolution Darwin taught, nor was he responsible for the attitudes of social Darwinism, which is simply the greed of Victorian laissez faire capitalism.

True. Darwinism may have "justified" racism, but it certainly didn't start it. Darwin himself was probably what we would nowadays call a casual racist, but as I said, practically every white person in the 19th century was.

 

[Keachian]

"nevermind the fact that we had originally started to give the other levels names."

Just thought I'd address this more thoroughly.
Animals (a kingdom) as a general term are a part of the domain of Eukayotes, however they are also a part of Opisthokonta, Holozoa and Filozoa. So here is a somewhat reduced(I got to Synapsida and half gave up on all ranks) clasification of humans(from eukaryotes to Sapiens Sapiens) each level with its own attributes and only some of them which I will mark with asterisks with names for the taxonomic rank and those with ^ are classical ones from Linnaeus.

Eukayota*
Unikonta
Opisthokonta
Holozoa
Filozoa
Metazoa(Animals)*^
Eumetazoa*
Bilateria
Deuterostomia*
Chordata*
Vertebrata*
Gnathostoma*
Eugnathostomata
Teleostomi
Tetrapoda*
Amniota
Synapsida
Mammaliaformes
Mammals*^
Theriiformes*
Holotheria*
Cladotheria*
Zatheria*
Tribosphenida*
Theria*
Eutheria*
Epitheria*
Boreoeutheria*
Euarchontoglires*
Euarchonta*
Primatomorpha*
Primates*
Haplorhini*
Simiiformes*
Catarrhini*
Hominoidea*
Hominidae*
Homininae*
Hominini*
Homo*
Sapiens*
Sapiens*

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Anyone else besides those that are faking it? It must take enormous sinful pride to be corrected in detail and by common sense logic and yet still maintain such lies. If they had been my students I would have flunked each of them for deliberately twisting the truth. I am an ex-evolutionist.

WHERE is the genetic formula that reveals the transition of man from the 'common ancestor'...vertebrates to invertebrates...or one-celled creatures to even the smallest fish? These Orwellians cannot produce those formulas. Are there any honest readers who can do so?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

If they had been my students I would have flunked each of them for deliberately twisting the truth. I am an ex-evolutionist.

Well that says it all. Did you intentionally fail students who didn't conform to your personal opinions?

Anyone else besides those that are faking it?
...
WHERE is the genetic formula that reveals the transition of man from the 'common ancestor'...vertebrates to invertebrates...or one-celled creatures to even the smallest fish? These Orwellians cannot produce those formulas. Are there any honest readers who can do so?

According to you anyone who did present genetic evidence that all life evolved from a common ancestor is automatically "dishonest". I feel sorry for your so-called students and doubt you were ever an evolutionist.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Mommy told me not to talk to strange persons.

 

[Keachian]

Baloney. You shut your brain down when you got brainwashed by neo-Darwinian stooges and you can't discern the truth in this matter because of that mental mind-conditioning.

You kicking and screaming saying it is true doesn't make it so.

Now, where is the genetic formula I requested that links these organisms to those they supposedly evolved from....or into as may be the case. Progmonk didn't give us that.

What do you think they supposedly evolved from? For one thing all vertebrates continue to be Chordates, while not all Chordates are Vertebrates, indeed not all chordates are even Craniates. Invertebrates is such a loose term (that which is not a vertebrate) that it hardly qualifies as a cladistical term after all we know that all species within a clade continue to be in that clade. Invertebrate covers both creatures without a developed skeletal system(such as sponges, flatworms and the like) and those with a exoskeleton (insects, Molluscs, etc.) to say that vertebrates developed from exoskeletal organisms is incorrect, however both likely developed from animals without a skeletal system.

But if that link can't be made then how can anyone honestly call this 'science'. Yet, common sense tells us if they can't make a link between man (homo) and his 'common ancestor' (hominini?) then how in the world will they make genetic links that should be an obvious and easily proved result of the phylogeny?

What exactly are you saying here?

progmonk is faking it. But like his companions in error that's the best they can do.

I have yet to see proof that I am faking it

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Mommy told me not to talk to strange persons.

You don't talk to anyone who criticises your arguments. I realise such people who do not automatically agree with you must seem "strange".

 

[Keachian]

Anyone else besides those that are faking it? It must take enormous sinful pride to be corrected in detail and by common sense logic and yet still maintain such lies. If they had been my students I would have flunked each of them for deliberately twisting the truth. I am an ex-evolutionist.

Well that's the biggest load of baloney I've ever seen. Mainly because common sense logic is how we do cladistics, heck Linnaeus (a Creationist) clade us with primates.

WHERE is the genetic formula that reveals the transition of man from the 'common ancestor'...vertebrates to invertebrates...or one-celled creatures to even the smallest fish? These Orwellians cannot produce those formulas. Are there any honest readers who can do so?

Vertebrates do not develop into invertebrates and depending on the type of invertebrate, they cannot develop into vertebrates.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

You kicking and screaming saying it is true doesn't make it so.

He's still pretending, isn't he? That seems to be a habit with him & his companions. I'm not kicking and screaming...I'm laughing at him.

What exactly are you saying here?

As if I haven't painted a giant picture of it all with huge letters on the board for all to see...multiple times in the last few days.

Hint: where is the genetic formula for the so-called transistion of man-from-chimp..........vertebrates from invertebrates.....or one-celled organisms to any kind of fish or anything in between?

Do you think he will get it this time, dear readers? Don't hold your breath.

I have yet to see proof that I am faking it

I just gave it to him and even (gasp!) put it on his computer screen right in front of him! I even documented my sources but he didn't see it. The Orwellians did a good job on him.

 

[Assyrian]

True. Darwinism may have "justified" racism, but it certainly didn't start it. Darwin himself was probably what we would nowadays call a casual racist, but as I said, practically every white person in the 19th century was.

Even the ones devoting their lives to the abolition of slavery? The accusation is an anachronism, which means it is nonsense. The accusation itself is a chronological snobbery on a par with casual racism. We aren't better people, we simply know a bit more than them, and the reason we know more is because of them and has been built on the work they did. Luke 12:48 Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required. The question is what they did with the understanding they had. Darwin saw the very real racism of his day for what it was, and hated it, he fought against and reached across the social and racial barriers of his day and formed friendships with the indigenous people he met on the voyage and had a deep respect for them.

I don't mind realising the heroes of faith, or science, were people with deep personal flaws too. Galileo was stupidly arrogant, Newton was a vengeful psychopath, Luther called Copernicus a fool and called on the nobility to exterminate the peasants in the peasants revolt. I wouldn't have a problem if Darwin really was a racist, but he wasn't. It is just an attempt to slander him from people who don't like the science.

 

[mathetes123]

Well that's the biggest load of baloney I've ever seen. Mainly because common sense logic is how we do cladistics, heck Linnaeus (a Creationist) clade us with primates.

Vertebrates do not develop into invertebrates and depending on the type of invertebrate, they cannot develop into vertebrates.

If life can appear from non-life, develop the ability to reproduce itself in the first generation, self design itself through the addition of information resulting from random chance until it has evolved into humans, why couldn't an invertebrate develop into a vertebrate, or vice versa. After all, allowing for billions of years, isn't anything possible?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Vertebrates do not develop into invertebrates and depending on the type of invertebrate, they cannot develop into vertebrates.

?

Well, are you Darwinians going to ask it or will I have to do it for you?

This is unbelievable. The only confusion I've seen worse than this is among the Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[Assyrian]

Hint: where is the genetic formula for the so-called transistion of man-from-chimp..........vertebrates from invertebrates.....or one-celled organisms to any kind of fish or anything in between?

What do you mean by genetic formula? Why do you keep giving example of hybridisation when you ask for the 'genetic formula'? Hybridisation wasn't how we diverge from chimps. Asking a nonsense question just means you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Assyrian]

Vertebrates do not develop into invertebrates and depending on the type of invertebrate, they cannot develop into vertebrates.

?
Well, are you Darwinians going to ask it or will I have to do it for you?

Seems straight forward to me, though I can see where it might confuse you. The answer is in the part you didn't highlight.

This is unbelievable. The only confusion I've seen worse than this is among the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Hope you are better with them than you are with TEs.

 

[Keachian]

He's still pretending, isn't he? That seems to be a habit with him & his companions. I'm not kicking and screaming...I'm laughing at him.

Well, no I'm not pretending and "kicking and screaming" is an idiom of mine for people who continually make accusations against me even when I have shown that they are not true.

where is the genetic formula for the so-called transistion of man-from-chimp..........vertebrates to invertebrates.....or one-celled organisms to any kind of fish or anything in between?

I'm not sure you understand genetics, heck I don't understand it I make no claims on that, but all of those examples you give except for the last one have not happened. I have told you this, you have set up a strawman saying man came from chimps or invertebrates came from vertebrates and so when I agree with you that this didn't happen you're like "Hah! I told you that it didn't happen!" pleased with yourself that I agree that your strawmen are ridiculous. I can tell you why a fish is also a Craniate, Chordate, Animal, Filozoa, Holozoa, Opisthokonta and Eukaryota if you'd like, however this won't be based on genetic formulas as you wish (I wouldn't even know where to start ) but rather on phylogenetic differences between the fish and other creatures residing in these categories.

I just gave it to him and even (gasp!) put it on his computer screen right in front of him! I even documented my sources but he didn't see it. The Orwellians did a good job on him.

So because I accept evolution based on the facts I'm pretending. You even say I'm duped in this sentence, the two are mutually exclusive rather than being interchangeable as you suggest.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I wouldn't have a problem if Darwin really was a racist, but he wasn't. It is just an attempt to slander him from people who don't like the science.

Darwin probably regarded the treatment of "savage" people the same way we regard animals - we don't like mistreating them, and we punish people who do, but that doesn't make them our equals:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
​

- The Descent of Man
(page 201)​

But this is just a minor point. Victorian attitudes towards race do not disprove evolution.