[_ Old Earth _] The fallacy of evolution

[Heidi]

What evolutionists claim is that animals can breed offspring that turn into human beings which is impossible. It is impossible because there is a natural sperm barrier between animals and humans which is one of the first elementary prinicples in biology. But evolutionists try to sidetrack us from their faulty premise by using the word 'evolve" as if that word alone can make animals breed humans. No creationist is claiming that evolutionists believe that the human being as we know it today came directly out of an ape. Evolutionists claim that this happened over a long period of time which involved many, many mutations, the chances of which, are more astronomical than anything in the bible, by the way.

It is also impossible because apes have not bred offspring that turned into humans since the beginning of recorded history, nor has any other animal! And since part of the definition of a species is that the living organisms within that species have to be able to interbreed with each other, then humans and apes cannot be the same species.

This whole theory was concocted specifically to defy God. But the contradictions in it, plus the obvious fact that animals do not breed offspring that turn into human beings, show how much the theory of evolution not only contradicts the reproductive process (because they claim apes didn't reproduce themselves but instead, another species), but reality is well.

But this theory is the degree that many people will go to defy God and the absurdity of it is not only a great embarrassment to "scientists" but to mankind as well. But the saddest part of all, is the desire for evolutionists to teach our children that animals can breed humans! This is more testamonial to the decay of man rather than to the increasing superiority of man's intelligence.

 

[Free]

I don't think that that is what evolutionists claim Heidi. Actually, I am quite certain.

 

[Loren Michael]

A bunch of misleading hyperbole and outright lies

that's completely false, heidi. you've been told as much every single time you post that same old tripe. no one has made any such claims, and yet you persist in attributing them to people.

 

[Heidi]

I don't think that that is what evolutionists claim Heidi. Actually, I am quite certain.

So you're saying that evolutionists claim we don't come from apes or primates. Is that correct? If so, then that contradicts the evolutionists who do say we come from apes or primates. How do they claim we came from apes or primates? Through their feet or through reproduction which is how all offspring are created ? So Which is it? :o

 

[Guest]

Evolutionists claim that this happened over a long period of time which involved many, many mutations, the chances of which, are more astronomical than anything in the bible, by the way.

Pick up a rock. Throw it into a puddle. The odds against that rock leaving your hand exactly that way, then going exactly that way through the air, then landing exactly that way in the puddle, causing the water to splash out in exactly that way are astronomical.

It is also impossible because apes have not bred offspring that turned into humans since the beginning of recorded history, nor has any other animal! And since part of the definition of a species is that the living organisms within that species have to be able to interbreed with each other, then humans and apes cannot be the same species.

Please, show me a scientific, peer-reviewed article about how humans and apes are the same species.

This whole theory was concocted specifically to defy God. But the contradictions in it, plus the obvious fact that animals do not breed offspring that turn into human beings, show how much the theory of evolution not only contradicts the reproductive process (because they claim apes didn't reproduce themselves but instead, another species), but reality is well.

Darwin was a Christian. Have you observed species over millions of years? Are you God? No? Then you presume an awful lot.

But this theory is the degree that many people will go to defy God and the absurdity of it is not only a great embarrassment to "scientists" but to mankind as well. But the saddest part of all, is the desire for evolutionists to teach our children that animals can breed humans! This is more testamonial to the decay of man rather than to the increasing superiority of man's intelligence.

Again, show me a single scientific, peer-reviewed article that says "animals breed humans."

 

[dad]

I don't think that that is what evolutionists claim Heidi. Actually, I am quite certain.

So you're saying that evolutionists claim we don't come from apes or primates. Is that correct? If so, then that contradicts the evolutionists who do say we come from apes or primates. How do they claim we came from apes or primates? Through their feet or through reproduction which is how all offspring are created ? So Which is it? :o

I am not an evo expert, but I think they claim that ideed we did decend from the apes, and even thet we are still classed as the same 'family' or whatever term they use. I think the reason they are playing with you, is trying to make you look bad, without wanting to clue you in, so you'll look bad long as possible. So, they don't say we came directly from apes, no. They claim it over millions of imaginary years.
I think it is like a mouse that got left on an island I read about. After some time, it adapted, or as they say 'evolved' inor somewhat of what they consider a different species. This they evidence because it couldn't breed with I think the kind of mouse that it supposedly was when first put on the island.
So in their fairy tales, over long time periods, things kept adapting into different species. I have had more than one admit to me that they were relatives to rats and cockcroaches! (in their mind)-because they think they all came from some first lifeform, so are related!
So, of course they claim we decended from monkeys, but not directly, through sex. This I think may be what they think you claim, and deride you for, as the moderator was trying to point out. (If I got this stuff straight)

 

[Heidi]

You are right, dad. They do claim we descended from apes. So why do they lie about it? Who knows? :o

 

[Guest]

What evolutionists claim is that animals can breed offspring that turn into human beings which is impossible. It is impossible because there is a natural sperm barrier between animals and humans which is one of the first elementary prinicples in biology.

You have quite a straw man here. Individuals don't evolve populations do.

"In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species."

This is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

It is also impossible because apes have not bred offspring that turned into humans since the beginning of recorded history, nor has any other animal! And since part of the definition of a species is that the living organisms within that species have to be able to interbreed with each other, then humans and apes cannot be the same species.

Modern apes breeding humans would disprove the Theory of Evolution. Please show me a biologist that is saying that modern apes and humans are the same species.

This whole theory was concocted specifically to defy God. But the contradictions in it, plus the obvious fact that animals do not breed offspring that turn into human beings, show how much the theory of evolution not only contradicts the reproductive process (because they claim apes didn't reproduce themselves but instead, another species), but reality is well.

Do you have any evidence to show evolution was made up to defy God? And why do the majority of Christians in the world accept in evolution?

As I said before humans are animals, mammals in fact.

It seems you don't know or understand much about human evolution to maybe better understand the human branch please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

 

[Guest]

So in their fairy tales, over long time periods, things kept adapting into different species. I have had more than one admit to me that they were relatives to rats and cockcroaches! (in their mind)-because they think they all came from some first lifeform, so are related!

DNA supports the Theory of Universal Common Descent quite well.

Are you the same dad as at christianforums.com? If so will we be hearing about your spiritual science fairy tales regarding the split and merge anytime soon?

 

[dad]

So in their fairy tales, over long time periods, things kept adapting into different species. I have had more than one admit to me that they were relatives to rats and cockcroaches! (in their mind)-because they think they all came from some first lifeform, so are related!

DNA supports the Theory of Universal Common Descent quite well.

Are you the same dad as at christianforums.com? If so will we be hearing about your spiritual science fairy tales regarding the split and merge anytime soon?

DNA supports the creation very well. Lots of info intelligently put in there with instructions for living things. The only way you can try to apply it to the theoretical Granny Bacteria, or first lifeform, is if you could evidence very very long ages. If you do try to do this, then, yes, I would have to present arguments about the present being different from the future, or the past, that negate the old age possibility.
If you keep your points to the present, and present processes, no, I don't need to get into all that.

 

[Guest]

DNA supports the creation very well. Lots of info intelligently put in there with instructions for living things. The only way you can try to apply it to the theoretical Granny Bacteria, or first lifeform, is if you could evidence very very long ages.

There is plenty of evidence for long ages through dating techniques, but since most creationists automatically brush them off how about continental drift, which could only have occurred through long ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

 

[Free]

So you're saying that evolutionists claim we don't come from apes or primates. Is that correct? If so, then that contradicts the evolutionists who do say we come from apes or primates. How do they claim we came from apes or primates? Through their feet or through reproduction which is how all offspring are created ? So Which is it?

Evolutionists claim that humans and apes come from a common ancestor, but we are not decended from apes. Your whole argument is a straw man and your reasoning is very poor. You would do well to actually do some serious study before engaging in debate about topics you seem to know very little of.


Juxtapose,

Humans certainly aren't animals, although there are a few that act like them.

 

[Heidi]

So you're saying that evolutionists claim we don't come from apes or primates. Is that correct? If so, then that contradicts the evolutionists who do say we come from apes or primates. How do they claim we came from apes or primates? Through their feet or through reproduction which is how all offspring are created ? So Which is it?

Evolutionists claim that humans and apes come from a common ancestor, but we are not decended from apes. Your whole argument is a straw man and your reasoning is very poor. You would do well to actually do some serious study before engaging in debate about topics you seem to know very little of.


Juxtapose,

Humans certainly aren't animals, although there are a few that act like them.

Talk about reasoning that's very poor, what was this common ancestor? Half-man half beast? :o And how did he get the traits of an ape or a human in order to be considered a common ancestor? :o

 

[Guest]

Juxtapose,

Humans certainly aren't animals, although there are a few that act like them.

As far as taxonomy goes humans are in the animalia kingdom. Humans are also classified as chordates, mammals and primates.

What kingdom would you put humans in then?

 

[Heidi]

Juxtapose,

Humans certainly aren't animals, although there are a few that act like them.

As far as taxonomy goes humans are in the animalia kingdom. Humans are also classified as chordates, mammals and primates.

What kingdom would you put humans in then?

A friend of mine has a Ph.d in science and he claims that humans are in the cat family because they have 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, and a mouth just like cats. Do you think that makes humans cats? If not, then why do you think someone calling humans primates then that makes them primates? Perhaps a vote by scientists? :o

 

[Loren Michael]

A friend of mine has a Ph.d in science and he claims that humans are in the cat family because they have 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, and a mouth just like cats. Do you think that makes humans cats? If not, then why do you think someone calling humans primates then that makes them primates? Perhaps a vote by scientists? :o

You would do well to actually do some serious study before engaging in debate about topics you seem to know very little of.

i think this is the issue we should be discussing. it seems more relevant to most of your posts, heidi.

 

[Guest]

Talk about reasoning that's very poor, what was this common ancestor? Half-man half beast? :o And how did he get the traits of an ape or a human in order to be considered a common ancestor?

It seems your comprehension skills are lacking. Humans and modern apes had a common ancestor that lived about 5 million years ago.

And evolution is not as instantaneous as you make it out to be. It took millions of years worth of changes (like bipedalism) for humans to evolve.

 

[Guest]

A friend of mine has a Ph.d in science and he claims that humans are in the cat family because they have 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, and a mouth just like cats. Do you think that makes humans cats? If not, then why do you think someone calling humans primates then that makes them primates? Perhaps a vote by scientists?

It might help you if you learned something about taxonomy.

All primates have five fingers (pentadactyly), a generalized dental pattern, and a primitive (unspecialized) body plan. Another distinguishing feature of primates is fingernails. Opposing thumbs are also a characteristic primate feature, but are not limited to this order; opossums, for example, also have opposing thumbs. In primates, the combination of opposing thumbs, short fingernails (rather than claws) and long, inward-closing fingers is a relic of the ancestral practice of brachiating through trees. Forward-facing color binocular vision was also useful for the brachiating ancestors of humans, particularly for finding and collecting food. All primates, even those that lack the features typical of other primates (like lorises), share eye orbit characteristics, such as a postorbital bar, that distinguish them from other taxonomic orders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate

Do humans have the characteristics described above?

It was a creationist, Carolus Linnaeus who put humans in the primate order.

Linnaeus wrote:

It is not pleasing to me that I must place humans among the primates, but man is intimately familiar with himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name is applied. But I desperately seek from you and from the whole world a general differerence between men and simians from the principles of Natural History. I certainly know of none. If only someone might tell me one! If I called man a simian or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to, in accordance with the law of the discipline [of Natural History].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolus_Linnaeus

 

[Guest]

A friend of mine has a Ph.d in science and he claims that humans are in the cat family because they have 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, and a mouth just like cats. Do you think that makes humans cats? If not, then why do you think someone calling humans primates then that makes them primates? Perhaps a vote by scientists? :o

A Ph.D in Science? Really? Where did he get it? Science University?

If you want to define a cat as "a creature with 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, and a mouth," then yes, humans are cats. If you want to define a cat as "a turnip," then no, humans aren't cats. But then, neither are cats. Only turnips would be.

 

[Heidi]

A friend of mine has a Ph.d in science and he claims that humans are in the cat family because they have 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, and a mouth just like cats. Do you think that makes humans cats? If not, then why do you think someone calling humans primates then that makes them primates? Perhaps a vote by scientists? :o

A Ph.D in Science? Really? Where did he get it? Science University?

If you want to define a cat as "a creature with 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, and a mouth," then yes, humans are cats. If you want to define a cat as "a turnip," then no, humans aren't cats. But then, neither are cats. Only turnips would be.

Sorry, but only the blind can't tell the difference between a human and a cat. 8-)