[_ Old Earth _] The fallacy of evolution

[Frost Giant]

Please provide evidence that apes or primates breed human beings. :

I can't because they don't and evolution doesn't claim they do.

 

[armed2010]

I'm sorry, no. Evolution has tons of evidence. Simply because you can't see the differences in animals from generation to generation doesn't mean they don't exist. Only that you are incapable of looking at the bigger picture.

Please provide evidence that apes or primates breed human beings. :

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=primate

humans breed humans, but they are classified as primates. There are other animals classified as primates though, yet these cannot breed human beings.

 

[PeterGriffin]

The Word of God does not have man's individual interpretations, but is interpreted to each man as the Holy Spirit gives understanding. Some have to twist the Word of God to say what they want it to say, and some twist the Word of God to reflect their perception of truth; that is why their is many who attack the literal areas of the Word of God with a passion. It would upset one of the three areas that I described.

So, what if some Christians claimed that the Holy Spirit has given them the understanding that parts of Genesis should be interpreted as allegorical? Because I have a feeling a large number of Christians would claim this. Are you calling them liars, or deluded, or perhaps posessed by Satan?

You have to understand, saying "God told me so", which is essentially all you've done in that post there, is worthless when you're debating this issue. Both sides can say it with equal credibility. The only way to debate the topic is with evidence that is universally available; i.e. scripture, and physical evidence. I would love to see you make an argument citing either or both of those, so we could actually discuss the topic.

God's Word says that each creation day was an evening and a morning, as well that each created form of life was created after its own kind. Evolutionists can only point to Adam being created out of the dust as proving evolutionary theory in Genesis.

God is able to tell us when he is being allegorical or not. Each time Jesus gives a parable, he explains it to the disciples. Adam is not allegorical. Sin is not allagorical. The Garden of Eden is not allegorical. If you want to put all of your eggs in the basket of men who allude that those portions of scripture are allegorical that is your choice. I have been given a belief that the record of creation in Genesis is true, and the origins of man from evolution is false.

Read Genesis and tell me how you see it.

As far as those that believe evolution is true, I believe as I stated in my previous post that there is some reason for their believing in evolution over the recorded history in Genesis. What is it? It could be a miriad of things, but each one would be in one of three areas; the pride of life, the lust of the flesh, or the lust of the eyes.

It doesn't surprise me that those in the younger generations believe in evolution, as it is taught as fact in the public schools today, and no time is spent whatsoever on creation. It takes quite a bit more study to come to the truth of creation today, then in the past. The Bible says that in the latter days there would be a falling away from sound doctrine, and in return a heeding of false doctrines of devils would be accepted.

Satan is the great deceiver, my friend. And he will do whatever he can to keep people from God even to the insane degree of leading us to believe that men came from animals. The reason Satan gives people to not believe in Genesis, even if they call themselves Christians, is because Genesis doesn't follow human reasoning period. But what they don't understand is God's ways are the opposite of our ways and if God were human he wouldn't be God, he would be human! So God is, by definition, supernatural. No human being could create the world because no human being is omniscient nor omnipotent. It's impossible. Therefore, we cannot possibly have the understanding of the universe that God has, nor will we ever gain that understanding. And that is why poeple who try to play God because they think they can figure out how the word was created on their own without God's help, are not only arrogant, but delusional as well. So not only is it absurd to think that one has that knowledge, but the theories people come up with are ludicrous because they contradict reality. "He who exalts himself will be humbled."

But Genesis does not contradict reality one bit. Humans breed humans and ape breed apes and humans rule over the animals. Since God created the world in the first place, then forming a human out of the dust is child's play for him! But it's not for apes since they still can only be found in the zoos. Giving apes the credit for man's existence not only contradicts the reproductive process and how genes are passed along, but apes are still found in zoos where man put them. So there is nothing about evolution that can be found in reality. Nothing...especially the missing link which is still, and always has been, only in the imagination.

Buddha was omniscient

 

[Heidi]

But Buddha himself claims he was not. :

 

[protos]

I think that those of you who believe in evolution should just read the following before judging:

History of evolution:

People who claim that evolution is a fairy tale from philosophy are right. In the 1st century B.C., a greek named Lucretius, an open opponent to Scripture, wrote "On the Nature of the Universe." In this he says that all animals descended from each other and that people today had enormous ancestors who lived in caves with strong sinews! Also he claims that if people weren't concerned about what was right or wrong, and did what they desired, then they would develop "freely." His reasoning for denying scripture was that something couldn't have come from nothing and thus God couldn't have created the earth out of nothing. In those days they assumed the earth was infinite in time.

Darwin was not the Einstein of biology, most of his "findings" are derived from his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin's book Zoonomia (1794) and Lamarck provided him with the millions of years he needed for evolution to work. (Note so far there is no evidence but the different species and Darwin's axiom).

The reason why evolution became shoved in our faces was because the church, not the scientists supported it. At the time, the church claimed that Darwin's theory was exactly what was written in Scripture. Scientists such as Gregor Mendel, Maxwell, Pasture and others rejected his theory.

Mutations:

Most people think of evolution as a step by step process. It is not so. The very definition of evolution is random. Thus the recombinations at a molecular level of the kilobases in the genome happen by natural processes and in the end produce a better "thing." However mutations only result in the loss, or unscramble of information. Just as a book has letters made of ink that contain information, when a tornado unscrambles those letters they no longer contain any information, they're just letters. The genome needs an increase in both kilobases and information, something that mutations, unfortunately for evolutionists, do not do.

Radio Carbon dating, & others.:

Most evolutionist folk claim that radio carbon dating is solid evidence for a million year old earth. Radio carbon dating, unfortunately can only give up to 50,000 year-old objects. In fact, it's a puzzle why some "prehistoric" coal still contains Carbon-14. Other methods include Argon, potassium and others. These methods were tested on a newly erupted lava from a volcano and the potassium one showed 45,000 year old crust, whereas the argon one showed 45 million.

The imaginary treeline of man:

Australopithecines, A.Robustus, Homo Habilis, Homo erectus, and friends are the imaginary treeline of man. Evolutionists claim that these are our ancestors, when in fact Australopithecines such as lucy and other species such as A.Robustus have been found to be extinct species of monkeys. There is no practical way of having a half hopping, half walking creature, because that results in the loss of excess energy making it a prey of natural selection. All of the homo's are different people, though there is some question about Homo habilis.

As a final nail in this treeline, all three skeletons have been found at the same spot dated at the same geological spot in Olduvai Gorge, Africa: Australopithecines, Homo Habilis and A.Robustus, not to mention that at the same place was found an 800,000 year old hut.

Misconceptions:

Aside from the evolutionist mass' misconception of the process of evolution itself, most evolutionist proponents claim that natural selection proves evolution. That's what Darwin thought, until Gregor Mendel came (with actual experimental evidence) and showed him wrong. Then in 1941, a committee of 3 scientists made neo-Darwinism. Natural selection is something accepted by creationists just as all types of dogs came from one dog and so all people came from Adam and Eve.

Atrocities committed in the name of evolution:

Many people claim that the Crusades and such events make the "Abrahamic religions," as put forth by Oxford chairman and atheist Richard Dawkins, are prone to be more violent due to belief in an afterlife. Aside from Darwin himself not believing in medicine because it helped the weak that "must" be eliminated, the 20th century, the bloodiest one killed more people because of the evolutionist ideal driven people such as Hitler, and Stalin. Hitler's regime was based on one of his early NDSAP party scientists which he admired. This scientist developed the concept of "living-space" or lebensraum which very much appealed to Hitler and his motives. By proclaiming that the Jews were an 'inferior' race he had the excuse to kill 6 million of them. Because of Hitler and his evolutionist theory 40 million people were killed. Communism alone killed about 90 million people. Mao Zedong and his regime killed tens of millions to gain power in China.

In all history at most 17 million people were killed in Christ, and by perfectly justifiable reasons committed by Muslims, such as burning of the Holy Sepulcher. Darwinism killed 150 million in just one century.

 

[protos]

I'm sorry, no. Evolution has tons of evidence. Simply because you can't see the differences in animals from generation to generation doesn't mean they don't exist. Only that you are incapable of looking at the bigger picture.

Please provide evidence that apes or primates breed human beings. :

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=primate

humans breed humans, but they are classified as primates. There are other animals classified as primates though, yet these cannot breed human beings.

Such classifications are very convenient. The genomes of many species broke most treelines in taxonomy. Things such as the frog legs and our fingers are shown to be controlled by different genes, just as the development of the batwing, dolphin flipper, and human wrist are. The genome between man and chimp has fallen to 95% from a previous estimate of 98.7%. Aside from this over 55% of the proteins in humans are different than those in chimps.

The banana genome and our genome have 50% similarities. This makes us "neither bananas half way from the waist up, nor half way from the waist down."

 

[Heidi]

Good point, Rookie! The notion that this common ancestor was half-beast, half-man makes the Greek myths look plausible! And people can call a human anything they want. It still doesn't make them able to exchange genes with apes! :

 

[reznwerks]

evidence

I think that those of you who believe in evolution should just read the following before judging:

History of evolution:

People who claim that evolution is a fairy tale from philosophy are right. In the 1st century B.C., a greek named Lucretius, an open opponent to Scripture, wrote "On the Nature of the Universe." In this he says that all animals descended from each other and that people today had enormous ancestors who lived in caves with strong sinews!
Imagine that! Even back then there was someone who could think. Lucretius was very insightful. Today we have the evidence to back the claim.


Also he claims that if people weren't concerned about what was right or wrong, and did what they desired, then they would develop "freely." His reasoning for denying scripture was that something couldn't have come from nothing and thus God couldn't have created the earth out of nothing. In those days they assumed the earth was infinite in time.
Your last statement makes no sense at all.

Darwin was not the Einstein of biology, most of his "findings" are derived from his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin's book Zoonomia (1794) and Lamarck provided him with the millions of years he needed for evolution to work. (Note so far there is no evidence but the different species and Darwin's axiom).
Darwin wasn't a biologist and it makes no difference where his ideas came from. Ideas always come from a source .It was his grandfather , so what. No evidence at this point in time. Again Darwin was insightful too. We now have the evidence.

The reason why evolution became shoved in our faces was because the church, not the scientists supported it.
Care to cite your source. Science only provides the evidence the reader then decides to make up his mind. Most people side with the overwhelming evidence.

At the time, the church claimed that Darwin's theory was exactly what was written in Scripture. Scientists such as Gregor Mendel, Maxwell, Pasture and others rejected his theory.
At the time evolutionary theory was not well thought out and those scientists you mentioned were not skilled in evolutionary thought and more importantly were devout Christians and they knew the implications of the reality.

Mutations:

Most people think of evolution as a step by step process. It is not so. The very definition of evolution is random.
I don't know what dictionary you are using but the one I use says it is the exact opposite of what you claim. Would you care to cite your sources?


Radio Carbon dating, & others.:

Most evolutionist folk claim that radio carbon dating is solid evidence for a million year old earth. Radio carbon dating, unfortunately can only give up to 50,000 year-old objects. In fact, it's a puzzle why some "prehistoric" coal still contains Carbon-14. Other methods include Argon, potassium and others. These methods were tested on a newly erupted lava from a volcano and the potassium one showed 45,000 year old crust, whereas the argon one showed 45 million.
At least one bright spot in this post and that is Protos will admit to the earth being at least 50000 years old.

The imaginary treeline of man:

Australopithecines, A.Robustus, Homo Habilis, Homo erectus, and friends are the imaginary treeline of man. Evolutionists claim that these are our ancestors, when in fact Australopithecines such as lucy and other species such as A.Robustus have been found to be extinct species of monkeys. There is no practical way of having a half hopping, half walking creature, because that results in the loss of excess energy making it a prey of natural selection. All of the homo's are different people, though there is some question about Homo habilis.

As a final nail in this treeline, all three skeletons have been found at the same spot dated at the same geological spot in Olduvai Gorge, Africa: Australopithecines, Homo Habilis and A.Robustus, not to mention that at the same place was found an 800,000 year old hut.
[/color=blue] It's getting better. Protos will now admit to the earth being at least 800,000 years old.[/color]

Misconceptions:

Aside from the evolutionist mass' misconception of the process of evolution itself, most evolutionist proponents claim that natural selection proves evolution. That's what Darwin thought, until Gregor Mendel came (with actual experimental evidence) and showed him wrong. Then in 1941, a committee of 3 scientists made neo-Darwinism. Natural selection is something accepted by creationists just as all types of dogs came from one dog and so all people came from Adam and Eve.
Mendel wasn't around in the late 90's to witness the influenza virus change on a yearly basis. This is evolution before your very eyes.

Atrocities committed in the name of evolution:

Many people claim that the Crusades and such events make the "Abrahamic religions," as put forth by Oxford chairman and atheist Richard Dawkins, are prone to be more violent due to belief in an afterlife.
In short it is believed that religion, by claiming an afterlife cheapens this life and so it is often callous in its call to war.

Aside from Darwin himself not believing in medicine because it helped the weak that "must" be eliminated, the 20th century, the bloodiest one killed more people because of the evolutionist ideal driven people such as Hitler, and Stalin. Hitler's regime was based on one of his early NDSAP party scientists which he admired.
Read Meinkampf. Hitlers quotes are abundant and clear and he fervently believed he was doing the work of the "LORD".

This scientist developed the concept of "living-space" or lebensraum which very much appealed to Hitler and his motives. By proclaiming that the Jews were an 'inferior' race he had the excuse to kill 6 million of them. Because of Hitler and his evolutionist theory 40 million people were killed. Communism alone killed about 90 million people. Mao Zedong and his regime killed tens of millions to gain power in China.
Does anyone but you believe that the above atrocities occurred because of evolution? Perhaps you overlooked the obvious, POLITICS and POWER.

In all history at most 17 million people were killed in Christ, and by perfectly justifiable reasons committed by Muslims, such as burning of the Holy Sepulcher. Darwinism killed 150 million in just one century.
I think you need a history lesson.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5195/victims.html

 

[protos]

Most of your post was this isn't what I was taught. I didn't admit that the earth was at least 50,000 years old and if you read all of it you would know why this method fails. Hitler is described by his doctors as an ardent evolutionist. I knew that one of you was gonna come along and senselessly try to contradict all of what I wrote. I can't think of someone who believes in the Lord and would kill 6million people and be the cause for the death of millions more.

 

[armed2010]

Good point, Rookie! The notion that this common ancestor was half-beast, half-man makes the Greek myths look plausible! And people can call a human anything they want. It still doesn't make them able to exchange genes with apes! :

I sure hope that it doesn't make us able to exchange genes with the species Ape, because that would go completely against evolution.

 

[armed2010]

Most of your post was this isn't what I was taught. I didn't admit that the earth was at least 50,000 years old and if you read all of it you would know why this method fails. Hitler is described by his doctors as an ardent evolutionist. I knew that one of you was gonna come along and senselessly try to contradict all of what I wrote. I can't think of someone who believes in the Lord and would kill 6million people and be the cause for the death of millions more.

Godwins Law

 

[armed2010]

I'm sorry, no. Evolution has tons of evidence. Simply because you can't see the differences in animals from generation to generation doesn't mean they don't exist. Only that you are incapable of looking at the bigger picture.

Please provide evidence that apes or primates breed human beings. :

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=primate

humans breed humans, but they are classified as primates. There are other animals classified as primates though, yet these cannot breed human beings.

Such classifications are very convenient. The genomes of many species broke most treelines in taxonomy. Things such as the frog legs and our fingers are shown to be controlled by different genes, just as the development of the batwing, dolphin flipper, and human wrist are. The genome between man and chimp has fallen to 95% from a previous estimate of 98.7%. Aside from this over 55% of the proteins in humans are different than those in chimps.

The banana genome and our genome have 50% similarities. This makes us "neither bananas half way from the waist up, nor half way from the waist down."

Having 50% similar genes is not supposed to make us half banana half human. We share genes with different life on this planet because all life has common ancestry. Please stop spreading falsehoods.

 

[Heidi]

It doesn't do any good. Myriads of manuscripts, eye-wtiness testimony, the prophecies of jesus that he would be mocked, reviled, hated, and his followers would be treated the same way, and the miracle of creation itself can stare unbelievers right in the face and they still wouldn't believe in God! Therefore, evidence plays no part in the belief system of non-Christians. They ignore the evidence given that Christ lived and they have zero evidence for their beliefs. But they just prove Jesus all the more right when he said; "If they did not believe Moses and the Prophets then neither will they believe someone who has risen from the dead." They won't believe Christ no matter how much evidence is presented for his existence! Yet they yell the loudest because they can't see God! :o All they have to do is take their blinders off to see His existence all around them every day, and stop denying the evidence, but they refuse to do this. Therefore, as Jesus said, "They are now without excuse."

 

[AHIMSA]

Is what you just said in anyway relevant to a scientific discussion about evolution?

Didn't think so. When you have to remove yourself from the argument and start telling us that we don't believe in Jesus, therefore, we're doomed, you are fully circumventing the argument itself. Such tactics are usually used when one can no longer adaquately argue their own positions.

 

[armed2010]

It doesn't do any good. Myriads of manuscripts, eye-wtiness testimony, the prophecies of jesus that he would be mocked, reviled, hated, and his followers would be treated the same way, and the miracle of creation itself can stare unbelievers right in the face and they still wouldn't believe in God! Therefore, evidence plays no part in the belief system of non-Christians. They ignore the evidence given that Christ lived and they have zero evidence for their beliefs. But they just prove Jesus all the more right when he said; "If they did not believe Moses and the Prophets then neither will they believe someone who has risen from the dead." They won't believe Christ no matter how much evidence is presented for his existence! Yet they yell the loudest because they can't see God! :o All they have to do is take their blinders off to see His existence all around them every day, and stop denying the evidence, but they refuse to do this. Therefore, as Jesus said, "They are now without excuse."

I was hoping for something related to evolution, but alright.

 

[protos]

Most of your post was this isn't what I was taught. I didn't admit that the earth was at least 50,000 years old and if you read all of it you would know why this method fails. Hitler is described by his doctors as an ardent evolutionist. I knew that one of you was gonna come along and senselessly try to contradict all of what I wrote. I can't think of someone who believes in the Lord and would kill 6million people and be the cause for the death of millions more.

Godwins Law

The Nazis may have believed in God which is probably true, but they were evolutionists which drove their regime of annihilating the jews, slavs and all other races which weren't Aryan. They went as far as concocting pre-Adamic races and other things to show that they weren't related at all to the other 'inferior races.' Not to mention that the methods of euthanasia during Nazi Germany is similar to that of a certain modern evolutionist's (don't remember his name).

Edit: It's also important to note that Lucretius' ideas were based on absolutely no objective evidence. This was just one of the many philosophies of the Greeks including the theory of geocentrism. Lucretius went as far as proposing that if people weren't as concerned about what is right or wrong and did what they wanted then they would develop freely. According to him Hitler and Stalin's crimes to humanity are perfectly justified, as well as by evolution.

 

[armed2010]

Most of your post was this isn't what I was taught. I didn't admit that the earth was at least 50,000 years old and if you read all of it you would know why this method fails. Hitler is described by his doctors as an ardent evolutionist. I knew that one of you was gonna come along and senselessly try to contradict all of what I wrote. I can't think of someone who believes in the Lord and would kill 6million people and be the cause for the death of millions more.

Godwins Law

The Nazis may have believed in God which is probably true, but they were evolutionists which drove their regime of annihilating the jews, slavs and all other races which weren't Aryan. They went as far as concocting pre-Adamic races and other things to show that they weren't related at all to the other 'inferior races.' Not to mention that the methods of euthanasia during Nazi Germany is similar to that of a certain modern evolutionist's (don't remember his name).

Edit: It's also important to note that Lucretius' ideas were based on absolutely no objective evidence. This was just one of the many philosophies of the Greeks including the theory of geocentrism. Lucretius went as far as proposing that if people weren't as concerned about what is right or wrong and did what they wanted then they would develop freely. According to him Hitler and Stalin's crimes to humanity are perfectly justified, as well as by evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is not a moral guide. It is an observation of mechanisms. If people try to turn it into a guide on how to act, and then commit horrible crimes, it does not credit or discredit the theory of the original mechanisms. I could point out things like The Spanish Inquisition or The Crusades in an attempt to show bad things that Christianity has influenced, but it would not actually affect the idea and concept of Christianity itself.

Also, look up the defenition of Godwins Law.

 

[protos]

Re: evidence

I think that those of you who believe in evolution should just read the following before judging:

History of evolution:

People who claim that evolution is a fairy tale from philosophy are right. In the 1st century B.C., a greek named Lucretius, an open opponent to Scripture, wrote "On the Nature of the Universe." In this he says that all animals descended from each other and that people today had enormous ancestors who lived in caves with strong sinews!
Imagine that! Even back then there was someone who could think. Lucretius was very insightful. Today we have the evidence to back the claim.

Unfortunately you fail to see the humor in that. I stated this example to show that the theory of evolution is a figment of people's imagination. Evidence to back that claim? We all have the same evidence. We all have the same earth, we all have the same fossils, it's the interpretations that make the differences. The axiom of evolution is materialism, and the axiom of creationists is the Word of God. I suppose by stating that the theory of evolution is backed by evidence you mean to say that all of information theory is wrong?

Also he claims that if people weren't concerned about what was right or wrong, and did what they desired, then they would develop "freely." His reasoning for denying scripture was that something couldn't have come from nothing and thus God couldn't have created the earth out of nothing. In those days they assumed the earth was infinite in time.
Your last statement makes no sense at all.

Darwin was not the Einstein of biology, most of his "findings" are derived from his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin's book Zoonomia (1794) and Lamarck provided him with the millions of years he needed for evolution to work. (Note so far there is no evidence but the different species and Darwin's axiom).
Darwin wasn't a biologist and it makes no difference where his ideas came from. Ideas always come from a source .It was his grandfather , so what. No evidence at this point in time. Again Darwin was insightful too. We now have the evidence.

I never said Darwin was a biologist. I very well know that he was the naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle. Instead of proclaiming the diversity that our Creator made he decided to proclaim that the species all came from a common ancestor.

[quote:e0205]
The reason why evolution became shoved in our faces was because the church, not the scientists supported it.
Care to cite your source. Science only provides the evidence the reader then decides to make up his mind. Most people side with the overwhelming evidence.

Science provides evidence through objective experimentation. Evolution and darwinism can't be tested in the laboratories and any tries have failed such as the Miller experiment, and others have contradicted Darwin with actual experiments instead of imaginative postulates. Those people include Gregor Mendel and his pea experiments which was the founding of genetics as well as Louis Pasteur who showed spontaneous generation was also an illusion which brought tremendous difficulties upon Darwin's theory. Both Mendel and Pasteur believed in the doctrine of Special Creation.

At the time, the church claimed that Darwin's theory was exactly what was written in Scripture. Scientists such as Gregor Mendel, Maxwell, Pasture and others rejected his theory.
At the time evolutionary theory was not well thought out and those scientists you mentioned were not skilled in evolutionary thought and more importantly were devout Christians and they knew the implications of the reality.

I suggest you research on this subject because real devout pastors proclaimed evolution as fitting with Scripture which is why it got the support.

Mutations:

Most people think of evolution as a step by step process. It is not so. The very definition of evolution is random.
I don't know what dictionary you are using but the one I use says it is the exact opposite of what you claim. Would you care to cite your sources?

If you think that evolution is a process which has a mechanism that makes a 100% better thing every time it tries then obviously you have no understanding on this subject at all. Atheistic evolution, which is what I assume you believe in is when random mutations rearrange the genome into a better fit. Yet this only results in the loss of information and does not gain any kilobases as needed for the genome to progress. This is actually needed if nature is all that evolution is instead of a guiding hand which is theistic evolution or gap theory.

Radio Carbon dating, & others.:

Most evolutionist folk claim that radio carbon dating is solid evidence for a million year old earth. Radio carbon dating, unfortunately can only give up to 50,000 year-old objects. In fact, it's a puzzle why some "prehistoric" coal still contains Carbon-14. Other methods include Argon, potassium and others. These methods were tested on a newly erupted lava from a volcano and the potassium one showed 45,000 year old crust, whereas the argon one showed 45 million.
At least one bright spot in this post and that is Protos will admit to the earth being at least 50000 years old.

??

The imaginary treeline of man:

Australopithecines, A.Robustus, Homo Habilis, Homo erectus, and friends are the imaginary treeline of man. Evolutionists claim that these are our ancestors, when in fact Australopithecines such as lucy and other species such as A.Robustus have been found to be extinct species of monkeys. There is no practical way of having a half hopping, half walking creature, because that results in the loss of excess energy making it a prey of natural selection. All of the homo's are different people, though there is some question about Homo habilis.

As a final nail in this treeline, all three skeletons have been found at the same spot dated at the same geological spot in Olduvai Gorge, Africa: Australopithecines, Homo Habilis and A.Robustus, not to mention that at the same place was found an 800,000 year old hut.
[/color=blue] It's getting better. Protos will now admit to the earth being at least 800,000 years old.[/color]

????Are you even reading or just looking up specific words. Again information... You have to keep in mind that if we use the timeframe of evolution we can show it's wrong, just as if you assume that an irrational number is a fraction and prove it's not so if you assume that evolution is true you can show it's inconsistencies. Just because you assume something is true does not make it so as you seem to think. I said it's 800,000 years within the context of the evolutionary timeframe. In fact those 800,000 year old objects are less than 4,000 years old but the methods of dating are flawed as is stated above.

Misconceptions:

Aside from the evolutionist mass' misconception of the process of evolution itself, most evolutionist proponents claim that natural selection proves evolution. That's what Darwin thought, until Gregor Mendel came (with actual experimental evidence) and showed him wrong. Then in 1941, a committee of 3 scientists made neo-Darwinism. Natural selection is something accepted by creationists just as all types of dogs came from one dog and so all people came from Adam and Eve.
Mendel wasn't around in the late 90's to witness the influenza virus change on a yearly basis. This is evolution before your very eyes.

Influenza virus change and evolution before my very eyes? How do you figure that is evolution? Or are you again making an assumption? If you mean the current adaptation of bacteria resistant to penicillin then let me tell you this. The bacteria which have resistance to penicillin originally had a gene which controlled the amount of enzymes which counter-reacted penicillin. A genetic mutation RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF GENETIC INFORMATION caused a malfunction of this gene and through natural selection the bacteria which had this gene damaged survive currently penicillin injections.

Atrocities committed in the name of evolution:

Many people claim that the Crusades and such events make the "Abrahamic religions," as put forth by Oxford chairman and atheist Richard Dawkins, are prone to be more violent due to belief in an afterlife.
In short it is believed that religion, by claiming an afterlife cheapens this life and so it is often callous in its call to war.

No, Dawkins was claiming that since we have a life after death, religious people are detrimental to society since they will have no respect for this life. This is wrong as murder and all the morals accepted by society today are based on the Bible (except gay marriage and such).

Aside from Darwin himself not believing in medicine because it helped the weak that "must" be eliminated, the 20th century, the bloodiest one killed more people because of the evolutionist ideal driven people such as Hitler, and Stalin. Hitler's regime was based on one of his early NDSAP party scientists which he admired.
Read Meinkampf. Hitlers quotes are abundant and clear and he fervently believed he was doing the work of the "LORD".

Hitler may have believed in God but he was nevertheless an evolutionist which was the driving force behind the murder of millions.

This scientist developed the concept of "living-space" or lebensraum which very much appealed to Hitler and his motives. By proclaiming that the Jews were an 'inferior' race he had the excuse to kill 6 million of them. Because of Hitler and his evolutionist theory 40 million people were killed. Communism alone killed about 90 million people. Mao Zedong and his regime killed tens of millions to gain power in China.
Does anyone but you believe that the above atrocities occurred because of evolution? Perhaps you overlooked the obvious, POLITICS and POWER.

Stalin did what he wanted to stay in power. As you know communists were atheists ("Religion is the opiate of the people" -Karl Marx). According to communists evolution was fact which gave them the excuse to kill "unfit" people as they wanted.

In all history at most 17 million people were killed in Christ, and by perfectly justifiable reasons committed by Muslims, such as burning of the Holy Sepulcher. Darwinism killed 150 million in just one century.
I think you need a history lesson.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5195/victims.html

[/quote:e0205]

Anybody can make a geocities biased site. I've read actual books, and even though they were anti-European they still mentioned the fact that in 1009 The Holy Sepulcher was burned by the Muslim Caliph, though it said he was mad and the muslims supposedly excused everyone, but my people know the truth about how Muslims convert people by the sword, and I doubt that people were allowed the religious freedom the book claimed. Nevertheless I doubt that a person as righteous as the Pope would call onto hundreds of thousands to their demise without a purpose. If you need more convincing I'd be glad to provide links in the near future for all that I've wrote.

 

[protos]

Most of your post was this isn't what I was taught. I didn't admit that the earth was at least 50,000 years old and if you read all of it you would know why this method fails. Hitler is described by his doctors as an ardent evolutionist. I knew that one of you was gonna come along and senselessly try to contradict all of what I wrote. I can't think of someone who believes in the Lord and would kill 6million people and be the cause for the death of millions more.

Godwins Law

The Nazis may have believed in God which is probably true, but they were evolutionists which drove their regime of annihilating the jews, slavs and all other races which weren't Aryan. They went as far as concocting pre-Adamic races and other things to show that they weren't related at all to the other 'inferior races.' Not to mention that the methods of euthanasia during Nazi Germany is similar to that of a certain modern evolutionist's (don't remember his name).

Edit: It's also important to note that Lucretius' ideas were based on absolutely no objective evidence. This was just one of the many philosophies of the Greeks including the theory of geocentrism. Lucretius went as far as proposing that if people weren't as concerned about what is right or wrong and did what they wanted then they would develop freely. According to him Hitler and Stalin's crimes to humanity are perfectly justified, as well as by evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is not a moral guide. It is an observation of mechanisms. If people try to turn it into a guide on how to act, and then commit horrible crimes, it does not credit or discredit the theory of the original mechanisms. I could point out things like The Spanish Inquisition or The Crusades in an attempt to show bad things that Christianity has influenced, but it would not actually affect the idea and concept of Christianity itself.

Also, look up the defenition of Godwins Law.

As a person who claims for molecules to man evolution morals are the last things evolution needs. Evolution is the reason why weaker people have to die. The atheist excuse for not going on a rampage killing spree, which they probably know is wrong, but their version of morals as I saw one person's definition was, "A moral is that which is commonly accepted by society." This is a very poor definition which means that since if morals are common then they change, and aren't morals, but they haven't changed and still stand firm on the foundation of the Bible. It gives people the right to kill. I looked up Godwin's Law and all I got was "How to post about Nazis and get away with it," links and such. Also look up Haldane's Dilemma. As a part-time Communist he wanted evolution to work, but he couldn't solve this little problem.

 

[armed2010]

Most of your post was this isn't what I was taught. I didn't admit that the earth was at least 50,000 years old and if you read all of it you would know why this method fails. Hitler is described by his doctors as an ardent evolutionist. I knew that one of you was gonna come along and senselessly try to contradict all of what I wrote. I can't think of someone who believes in the Lord and would kill 6million people and be the cause for the death of millions more.

Godwins Law

The Nazis may have believed in God which is probably true, but they were evolutionists which drove their regime of annihilating the jews, slavs and all other races which weren't Aryan. They went as far as concocting pre-Adamic races and other things to show that they weren't related at all to the other 'inferior races.' Not to mention that the methods of euthanasia during Nazi Germany is similar to that of a certain modern evolutionist's (don't remember his name).

Edit: It's also important to note that Lucretius' ideas were based on absolutely no objective evidence. This was just one of the many philosophies of the Greeks including the theory of geocentrism. Lucretius went as far as proposing that if people weren't as concerned about what is right or wrong and did what they wanted then they would develop freely. According to him Hitler and Stalin's crimes to humanity are perfectly justified, as well as by evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is not a moral guide. It is an observation of mechanisms. If people try to turn it into a guide on how to act, and then commit horrible crimes, it does not credit or discredit the theory of the original mechanisms. I could point out things like The Spanish Inquisition or The Crusades in an attempt to show bad things that Christianity has influenced, but it would not actually affect the idea and concept of Christianity itself.

Also, look up the defenition of Godwins Law.

As a person who claims for molecules to man evolution morals are the last things evolution needs. Evolution is the reason why weaker people have to die. The atheist excuse for not going on a rampage killing spree, which they probably know is wrong, but their version of morals as I saw one person's definition was, "A moral is that which is commonly accepted by society." This is a very poor definition which means that since if morals are common then they change, and aren't morals, but they haven't changed and still stand firm on the foundation of the Bible. It gives people the right to kill. I looked up Godwin's Law and all I got was "How to post about Nazis and get away with it," links and such. Also look up Haldane's Dilemma. As a part-time Communist he wanted evolution to work, but he couldn't solve this little problem.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't give anyone the "right" to do anything. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes mechanisms found in nature and how they contribute to changes in lifeforms.

Morals do change. Slavery was thought to be ok centuries ago in the US, but now it is generally looked down upon. Morals are based on what a society deems to be bad or harmful to the functioning of that society.