[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is hostile to reason.

[Heidi]

Of course there are differences in people just like there are differences in dogs, horses, cows, etc.! But you can't change a cow into a bird or an ape into a man. Humans were always humans and as the bible says, he is separated from the animals. Any child can see that animals are not making the decisions in society. But the degree that evolutionists go to to try to prove that we came from animals is ludicrous. They even get confused themselves! Some evolutionists say we came from apes, some say we came from a "missing link", others say we came from primates & still others say we are primates. Anything but saying that God created us in his image. But this is what happens when we try to change the word of God into something else. Bizarre & Convoluted theories that are disagreed with by scientists themselves!

Sorry, but because the theory of evolution is so convoluted & contradictory, it holds no water. You have even admitted that by saying there is no proof, but someday there will be. These are extremely weak arguments that only undermine your theory even more. But convoluted & contradictory theories all come from unbelief in God. One cannot defy God without looking foolish. He's probably sitting up there laughing at all those who consider themselves wise & intelligent, running around trying to play God themselves. God told us how we were created. Trying to be as omniscient as he is will only show your weaknesses & fallibility. Sorry.

 

[cubedbee]

Heidi, your entire argument comes down to "Evolution is confusing to me and I don't understand it, so it isn't true." Do you really think this is a valid argument?

 

[Barbarian]

There was an article in the newspaper last year about scientists who found bones in the Gobi desert they said dated back millions of years ago. Then when an old man read about their findings, he walked into the police station and told them he thought they were the bones of his uncle who had wandered into the desert years earlier. So they did DNA testing and sure enough, they were the bones of his uncle.

Haven't heard that one in a long time. Lots of people claim to have seen it in "the newspaper", but every time I check, the paper says they never heard of it.

Do you have a source for this one? I suspect it's another urban legend.
They'd have to be pretty dumb to mistake fresh bone for fossils.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Of course there are differences in people just like there are differences in dogs, horses, cows, etc.! But you can't change a cow into a bird or an ape into a man.
Sorry, but because the theory of evolution is so convoluted & contradictory, it holds no water. You have even admitted that by saying there is no proof, but someday there will be. These are extremely weak arguments that only undermine your theory even more.

These two statements show that you do not even know what evolution actually is, you just have a vague idea that you've built out of sarcastic comments made by YECs.
If you don't want to believe in something because you lack knowledge of its definition, fine, that's a perfectly rational justification for rejecting something personally. But at the moment, you are rejecting the Theory of Evolution because the version you've made up all by yourself is convoluted & contradictory.

 

[Dave...]

Heidi, your entire argument comes down to "Evolution is confusing to me and I don't understand it, so it isn't true." Do you really think this is a valid argument?

Sorry cube, but this is an absurd statement to make in light of what this thread has shown thus far.

 

[cubedbee]

Heidi, your entire argument comes down to "Evolution is confusing to me and I don't understand it, so it isn't true." Do you really think this is a valid argument?

Sorry cube, but this is an absurd statement to make in light of what this thread has shown thus far.

Have you read a single post of Heidi's? She clearly lacks the most basic introductory middle school level of understanding about evolution, and her entire argument revolves around mocking her misunderstanding about what evolution really is. I'm not speaking of all creationists---others have made very well reasoned and logical arguments against evolution---I'm speaking of Heidi's particular line of arguing.

 

[Heidi]

Sorry, but I grew up on the theory of evolution & believed it for 38 years until I saw all the contradictions in the theory and unanswered questions. And the biggest contradiction of all is simply reality. Humans have always bred humans and other animals have always bred within their own species. Evolution contradicts the reproductive process within each species, the notion that DNA can spontaneously change into a superior species on its own, & the process of mutation which always produces damaged offspring, not superior offspring. Therefore, nothing evolves. Evolution also contradicts the scientific theory that everything is in a state of decay. So with all these contradictions, I would have to be a fool to buy into them. The truth holds no contradictions. Lies do.

On the other hand, everything supports creation the way the bible explains it. Men were created in the image of God separately from animals. Men stand out over animals because they rule over them. That also supports the bible. Animals do not make the decisions in society, men do. But evolutioary scientists cannot see that obvious fact. They also cannot see that men, not animals, are in laboratories, trying to play God. They also do not understand why apes & humans cannot mate and produce offspring.

But, since some people do not want to believe in God, they invent theories about our creation, as if they were there. This is as absurd as the theories they invent. But they'd make great sci-fi movies!

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry, but I grew up on the theory of evolution & believed it for 38 years until I saw all the contradictions in the theory and unanswered questions.

Heidi, it's obvious that you never learned what evolutionary theory is about.

 

[Heidi]

So everything I was taught in school about evolution was a lie? I would agree with that.

 

[Barbarian]

Most people hear very little about evolution in public schools, but I've never heard of anyone teaching what you think it is.

Where did you go to school?

 

[Dave...]

Alright, lets assume, for the sake of this debate, that everyone here agreed that all dogs came from the same two dogs. Where are you going with this? This alone does not prove Macro evolution, right? Are you building a foundation to something else that you wish to explain, or is this your only proof that you offer to explain why you think that fish can evolve into bears?

It seems to me that we are arguing in this way to avoid the real issues, unless of course that there is more to it down the road. I think what Heidi has been trying to do is use the minor debates to point at the bigger issues. But for doing this, she is criticized for not staying where you guys are comfortable. If i'm wrong, then tell me how, or why.

 

[reznwerks]

primate

I don't think Heidi understands that man IS a primate and IS an animal. The examples being used like dogs don't breed other animals is correct but dogs as we know them have been manipulated from other canines. It is not readily reported but wolves and foxes themselves have left evidence of their evolution also. The best example I gave was the horse and how it evolved.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

 

[Dave...]

I don't think Heidi understands that man IS a primate and IS an animal.

More religion? Facts please.

The examples being used like dogs don't breed other animals is correct but dogs as we know them have been manipulated from other canines. It is not readily reported but wolves and foxes themselves have left evidence of their evolution also. The best example I gave was the horse and how it evolved.

As I said, this argument here doesn't mean much because too much is assumed. When you can prove that man evolved from apes (the first quote that you gave), then you might be able to do something here.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I don't think Heidi understands that man IS a primate and IS an animal.

More religion? Facts please.

[quote6612]The examples being used like dogs don't breed other animals is correct but dogs as we know them have been manipulated from other canines. It is not readily reported but wolves and foxes themselves have left evidence of their evolution also. The best example I gave was the horse and how it evolved.

As I said, this argument here doesn't mean much because too much is assumed. When you can prove that man evolved from apes (the first quote that you gave), then you might be able to do something here.[/quote6612]
Plenty however is known.
Fact: At some point ~500,000 years ago, number pulled unabashedly out of hat, there were the first dogs, not much different from wolves, but accepting of humans as part of their pack family.
2: At a point millions of years previous there were no wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc, but an animal not too dissimilar from any of them.
3: Then earlier still these animals didn't exist but an animal that is both like a dog and like a cat.

Now, given that evolution occurs, which we KNOW is a fact, we've observed it, we've seen speciation, if you want to argue with it, try getting two animals or plants or what have you that have split into completely separate species under observation of some kind to produce offspring that can produce like offspring.
Given evolution, and the fact that these new animals, appeared while older similar animals disappeared, we can assume that there is a corrolation. Animals can and do evolve and speciate and in the fossil record there is evidence that new species took the place of older ones. So here is this phenomenon and here is this process that's been observed in modern times. Assuming that the process has occured as long as it is possible for it to occur, and that the process is reversible, physically speaking this means that if all the clocks suddenly went the other way, you would see things becoming simpler and simpler and chemical reactions going backwards.

Unless you can create justifiable reasons why enough of this is in error, in practice, for this not to be assumed, then your argument that there are too many assumptions holds no water.

 

[Dave...]

Fact: At some point ~500,000 years ago, number pulled unabashedly out of hat, there were the first dogs, not much different from wolves, but accepting of humans as part of their pack family.

You have not proven that humans are part of the same pack as apes, so arguing microevolution (or the rest of your argument) is pointless.

 

[Dave...]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html

What does the fossil record really teach concerning the theory of evolution? Do the fossils demonstrate the progression from simple structures to complex organisms? The following facts need to be considered:


Abrupt appearance of animals. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist) Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record. It contains no proof for macroevolution of animals.

Plants appear abruptly, too. Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner: "... I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97) Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.

Animals unchanged. Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to creatures living today. It is said there are many more living species of animals than there are types known only as fossils. If Evolution is true, one may wonder why the case is not just the reverse! Evolutionary history is supposed to be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of Evolution, from amoeba to man.

Sufficient fossils. There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution despite an enormous number of fossils. Although scientists will continue to discover new varieties of fossil animals and plants, it is generally agreed that the millions of fossils already discovered (and the sediments already explored) provide a reliable indication of which way the evidence is going. That is, there will continue to be little or no fossil evidence found to support Evolutionism.

Fast strata formation. There is increasing evidence that many sedimentary rocks, which some thought took thousands or millions of years to accumulate, almost certainly were deposited in only months, days, hours, or minutes.

Rapid coal formation. The old Evolutionary theory about coal forming in swamps is wrong. There is increasing evidence that massive coal deposits were formed in deep flood waters. Various coal layers in the U.S. consist mainly of sheets of tree bark abraded from huge masses of uprooted trees. The bark layers were buried in mud and carbonized into coal. Coal formation is relatively quick when heat is applied.

Fossilization requires very special conditions. Dinosaur and other fossils could not have formed in the way suggested by most Evolutionary books. Animals almost never fossilize unless they are buried quickly and deeply - before scavengers, bacteria and erosion reduce them to dust. Such conditions are highly unusual. In almost all cases, the very existence of the fossils, in the types and numbers discovered, strongly indicates catastrophic conditions were involved in their burial and preservation. Without such conditions, there seems to be no plausible way to explain their existence. Huge dinosaurs, huge schools of fish, and many diverse animals are found entombed by massive muddy sediments which hardened into rock. Almost all fossils are found in water-laid sediments.

Wrong order for evolution. It has been reported that "80 to 85% of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order" for Evolution.

The fossil record does not provide evidence in support for Evolution. "Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation." (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist)

 

[Heidi]

Most people hear very little about evolution in public schools, but I've never heard of anyone teaching what you think it is.

Where did you go to school?

Are you denying that evolutionists say we came from a primate, ape, genetic mutation "missing link", or survival of the fittest? If so, then what do evolutionists propone? Or don't they know themselves? :o If they don't, I can see why because there are as many theories about the origin of man as there are people in the world, so I can see why it's so confusing. ;-) So what of the above do they not propone?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Most people hear very little about evolution in public schools, but I've never heard of anyone teaching what you think it is.

Where did you go to school?

Are you denying that evolutionists say we came from a primate, ape, genetic mutation "missing link", or survival of the fittest?

That's quite a list. Why don't you tell me what you were taught in school, and we'll try to sort it out?

And where did you go to school?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Fact: At some point ~500,000 years ago, number pulled unabashedly out of hat, there were the first dogs, not much different from wolves, but accepting of humans as part of their pack family.

You have not proven that humans are part of the same pack as apes, so arguing microevolution (or the rest of your argument) is pointless.

They are genetically the type of animal most closely related to humans. Furthermore, there is no trait that primates have that we don't.

Here is how Primate is defined:
"characterized by refined development of the hands and feet, a shortened snout, and a large brain."
Now, which of those do humans lack?

 

[Heidi]

Re: primate

I don't think Heidi understands that man IS a primate and IS an animal. The examples being used like dogs don't breed other animals is correct but dogs as we know them have been manipulated from other canines. It is not readily reported but wolves and foxes themselves have left evidence of their evolution also. The best example I gave was the horse and how it evolved.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

And where is the evidence that horses evolved from anything but horses? I'm not talking about someone deciding they came from something else that looked like a horse, I'm talking about hard core evidence that horses came from the womb of another animal.

You guys think I don't understand what you're talking about when you say that things evolved. I actually understand what you're talking about better than you do! Evolutionists claim that over time, each offspring looks more & more like the animal it supposedly resembles today. But in doing so, you miss many, many obvious inconsistencies. By the reasoning of evolutionists, if my parents were midgets, evolutionists think that each generation would produce smaller and smaller offspring, when that is not the case at all. That is the same reasoning that evolutionists use to say that animals "evolve." They don't realize that the genetic code of the cells of horses are different than the genetic code of cows. The genetic code of the cells of humans are different than the genetic code of the cells of apes which is why apes are still apes & humans are still humans.

But evolutionists get around this by saying that some time in history, (although they don't know when), there used to be cross-breeding, but now there is not. There is zero proof of this & it is an obvious attempt to explain the fact that since recorded history, animals have never been able to cross-breed. In addition, if there is no longer cross-breeding, then how can evolution continue? :o

The theory of evolution is simply an attempt to try to attribute the creation of man to something other than God. But it is a feeble attempt because nothing can be proven, only speculated, just like the existence of aliens.