[_ Old Earth _] Ancient accounts of apemen

[chad87]

also what annoys me is, you people believe in this all mighty being and some are as thick and annoying as you and attempt to rip science apart, yet science has made our lives much much better. when your sick, do you go to the church and pray, or do you go see a doctor? science has extended our life, cured deseases etc. and religion has caused war.

Not to mention that evolution is used in medicine.

i guess, in heidi's defence, the church does have "holy water" ;-) ( ill add in a face as well since heidi likes little pictures, to help her attention, as we all are well aware, hiedi has a habit of shrugging off some posts ) :P talk about selective

oh and hiedis favourite method of argueing "repetition" so ill use

do you see us growing from DUST?? no... therefore you ahve no means of evidence such renders your theory obsolete

 

[Heidi]

Please stop speaking for me. Only the catholic church uses holy water and the catholic church is a cult because their beliefs have nothing to do with the bible. So it would be wise to make sure you've gathered the correct information before you speak.

Humans reproduce each other which evolutionists don't seem to know. But the first human couldn't have come from a human or an animal since no animal has ever produced a human being. God tells us where the first humans and animals came from. And since our flesh and bones eventualy turn into dust then obviously were are also made of dust. ;-)

Evolutionists, however, have no explanation for how the first animal or living organism came into existence. So they aren't qualified to say that God is wrong. So they can only look foolish claiming that they know better than God does. :

 

[Dunzo]

Please stop speaking for me. Only the catholic church uses holy water and the catholic church is a cult because their beliefs have nothing to do with the bible. So it would be wise to make sure you've gathered the correct information before you speak.

Humans reproduce each other which evolutionists don't seem to know. But the first human couldn't have come from a human or an animal since no animal has ever produced a human being. God tells us where the first humans and animals came from. And since our flesh and bones eventualy turn into dust then obviously were are also made of dust. ;-)

Evolutionists, however, have no explanation for how the first animal or living organism came into existence. So they aren't qualified to say that God is wrong. So they can only look foolish claiming that they know better than God does. :

Do you read my posts or not?

 

[Heidi]

Please stop speaking for me. Only the catholic church uses holy water and the catholic church is a cult because their beliefs have nothing to do with the bible. So it would be wise to make sure you've gathered the correct information before you speak.

Humans reproduce each other which evolutionists don't seem to know. But the first human couldn't have come from a human or an animal since no animal has ever produced a human being. God tells us where the first humans and animals came from. And since our flesh and bones eventualy turn into dust then obviously were are also made of dust. ;-)

Evolutionists, however, have no explanation for how the first animal or living organism came into existence. So they aren't qualified to say that God is wrong. So they can only look foolish claiming that they know better than God does. :

Do you read my posts or not?

Unfortunately, yes. But since they consist mostly of personal attacks, I haven't yet heard any proof that apes breed human descendants in reality. But I do notice that atheists ignore the threads they can't refute. ;-)

 

[Dunzo]

Do you read my posts or not?

Unfortunately, yes. But since they consist mostly of personal attacks, I haven't yet heard any proof that apes breed human descendants in reality. But I do notice that atheists ignore the threads they can't refute. ;-)

Yes, I have resorted to personal attacks (which I admit shouldn't be done). The majority of my posts, however, are in an effort to refute your highly fallacious arguments. The truth is that you have seen proof of human ancestry, you just choose to ignore it, or invent tenuous excuses to invalidate them. This is incredibly obvious.

And once again you're referring to the ignorance of your science vs science fiction thread. I cannot emphasise enough how nonsensical the premise of that thread is.
EDIT: And oh look, the mods have locked it, along with a plethora of your other threads. It'd seem that the mods (who I assume are also christian) don't think you're doing the christian faith any favours.

 

[Heidi]

Since you think it's fallaciaious that apes breed apes, humans breed humans and no one has ever witnessed an ape breeding human descendants, then rational conversation isn't possible with you because you are making blatantly false statements. And since you have never explained why my thread on science fiction is wrong, then again, you're not interested in engaging in any discussion, much less rational discussion, nor have you backed up your claim with any proof whatsoever. You would be laughed out of a formal debate by refusing to answer an opponent's question but instead attacking him by claiming it's a ridiculous question. That's the biggest sign that you can't refute your opponent's arguments which everyone but the person who can't answer the question knows. ;-) So you're not fooling anyone but those who also can't answer questions. Thus, all your posts show is that you're only interested in making false statements and attacking those who know that apes breed apes and humans breed humans. It's thus, impossible to converse with someone who does that.

So all I can say is that you really need to go to a zoo or a maternity ward to see what apes and humans breed and it's not each other. And until you do that, you will be living in your imagination and I'll be living in reality so you and I will never agree.
:roll:

 

[Dunzo]

Since you think it's fallaciaious that apes breed apes, humans breed humans and no one has ever witnessed an ape breeding human descendants, then rational conversation isn't possible with you because you are making blatantly false statements.

The statement isn't fallacious, the argument is.

And since you have never explained why my thread on science fiction is wrong, then again, you're not interested in engaging in any discussion, much less rational discussion, nor have you backed up your claim with any proof whatsoever.

I do believe I have, on both counts.

You would be laughed out of a formal debate by refusing to answer an opponent's question but instead attacking him by claiming it's a ridiculous question.

If the question is flawed, there is no harm in pointing that out.

That's the biggest sign that you can't refute your opponent's arguments which everyone but the person who can't answer the question knows. ;-)

I do believe I have refuted all of your fallacious arguments, with the obvious exception of the science vs science fiction thread. Nobody has replied to that thead.

So you're not fooling anyone but those who also can't answer questions.

Once again, nobody can answer questions like that.

Thus, all your posts show is that you're only interested in making false statements and attacking those who know that apes breed apes and humans breed humans. It's thus, impossible to converse with someone who does that.
So all I can say is that you really need to go to a zoo or a maternity ward to see what apes and humans breed and it's not each other. And until you do that, you will be living in your imagination and I'll be living in reality so you and I will never agree.
:roll:

We know, Heidi, that apes breed apes and humans breed humans. That's not where the key to evolution lies. The lines between species are incredibly blurred, that's why your argument is invalid, so stop using it.

 

[Jayls5]

Since you think it's fallaciaious that apes breed apes, humans breed humans and no one has ever witnessed an ape breeding human descendants, then rational conversation isn't possible with you because you are making blatantly false statements. And since you have never explained why my thread on science fiction is wrong, then again, you're not interested in engaging in any discussion, much less rational discussion, nor have you backed up your claim with any proof whatsoever. You would be laughed out of a formal debate by refusing to answer an opponent's question but instead attacking him by claiming it's a ridiculous question. That's the biggest sign that you can't refute your opponent's arguments which everyone but the person who can't answer the question knows. ;-) So you're not fooling anyone but those who also can't answer questions. Thus, all your posts show is that you're only interested in making false statements and attacking those who know that apes breed apes and humans breed humans. It's thus, impossible to converse with someone who does that.

So all I can say is that you really need to go to a zoo or a maternity ward to see what apes and humans breed and it's not each other. And until you do that, you will be living in your imagination and I'll be living in reality so you and I will never agree.
:roll:

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

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.


If you ask that people do not "speak for you" then it's only fair that you do not speak for them. Thanks.

 

[Heidi]

Since you think it's fallaciaious that apes breed apes, humans breed humans and no one has ever witnessed an ape breeding human descendants, then rational conversation isn't possible with you because you are making blatantly false statements. And since you have never explained why my thread on science fiction is wrong, then again, you're not interested in engaging in any discussion, much less rational discussion, nor have you backed up your claim with any proof whatsoever. You would be laughed out of a formal debate by refusing to answer an opponent's question but instead attacking him by claiming it's a ridiculous question. That's the biggest sign that you can't refute your opponent's arguments which everyone but the person who can't answer the question knows. ;-) So you're not fooling anyone but those who also can't answer questions. Thus, all your posts show is that you're only interested in making false statements and attacking those who know that apes breed apes and humans breed humans. It's thus, impossible to converse with someone who does that.

So all I can say is that you really need to go to a zoo or a maternity ward to see what apes and humans breed and it's not each other. And until you do that, you will be living in your imagination and I'll be living in reality so you and I will never agree.
:roll:

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

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.


If you ask that people do not "speak for you" then it's only fair that you do not speak for them. Thanks.

Bur since evolutionists deny everything we say about evolution, then they have no theory left. : Absolutely none. So denial always ends up contradicting one's own arguments.
;-)

 

[Dunzo]

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

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.


If you ask that people do not "speak for you" then it's only fair that you do not speak for them. Thanks.

Bur since evolutionists deny everything we say about evolution, then they have no theory left. : Absolutely none. So denial always ends up contradicting one's own arguments.
;-)

No. Evolutionists will deny the straw man argument, but not the actual theory of evolution.

 

[Jayls5]

Bur since evolutionists deny everything we say about evolution, then they have no theory left. : Absolutely none. So denial always ends up contradicting one's own arguments.
;-)

We don't deny everything people say about evolution; we merely deny the parts they make up and put into the mouths of evolutionists. I was specifically talking about your incorrect assumptions about evolution.

Denial does not always contradict one's own argument. Take the following example: I say I have a cat. You say that I said I have a dog. I deny your claim. I have not contradicted anything. I have merely said you're wrong about what I said. Zero contradiction. That is what is happening here. Evolution as a theory is laid out in countless scholarly articles, textbooks, etc. You have access to it, but you spout off many things that I have never seen or heard an evolutionist say. Thus, you form your own straw man arguments and 'knock them down' and claim that the evolutionist position has been defeated.

 

[Heidi]

Bur since evolutionists deny everything we say about evolution, then they have no theory left. : Absolutely none. So denial always ends up contradicting one's own arguments.
;-)

We don't deny everything people say about evolution; we merely deny the parts they make up and put into the mouths of evolutionists. I was specifically talking about your incorrect assumptions about evolution.

Denial does not always contradict one's own argument. Take the following example: I say I have a cat. You say that I said I have a dog. I deny your claim. I have not contradicted anything. I have merely said you're wrong about what I said. Zero contradiction. That is what is happening here. Evolution as a theory is laid out in countless scholarly articles, textbooks, etc. You have access to it, but you spout off many things that I have never seen or heard an evolutionist say. Thus, you form your own straw man arguments and 'knock them down' and claim that the evolutionist position has been defeated.

Since I've been accused of misrepresenting evolution, then would someone please tell me which of my assumptions is incorrect. It's easy to attack people. It's much harder to back up their attacks with examples and explanations.

So do evolutionists not claim that humans evolved from an ape of primate? If they don't claim that humans evolved from an ape or primate, then where do they claim that humans came from? :o If they do claim that humans evolved from an ape or primate, then by claiming I don't understand evolution, they are again denying their own theory. :o So which is it? I'd like a clear concise explanation for once instead of attacks against me that aren't being backed up. :roll:

Do evolutionists not know that mating and breeding is what produces descendants? If so, then do evolutionists claim this happened over hundreds of thousands of yeas or millions of years, or don't they know how long it took for an ape to turn into a human being and how many mutations it took? :o

Do evolutionists not believe in natural selection? :o

So which part of evolution am I misrepresenting? Or don't evolutionists themselves understand evolution enough to agree on what it is? Thank you.

 

[Jayls5]

Since I've been accused of misrepresenting evolution, then would someone please tell me which of my assumptions is incorrect. It's easy to attack people. It's much harder to back up their attacks with examples and explanations.

So do evolutionists not claim that humans evolved from an ape of primate? If they don't claim that humans evolved from an ape or primate, then where do they claim that humans came from? :o If they do claim that humans evolved from an ape or primate, then by claiming I don't understand evolution, they are again denying their own theory. :o So which is it? I'd like a clear concise explanation for once instead of attacks against me that aren't being backed up. :roll:

Do evolutionists not know that mating and breeding is what produces descendants? If so, then do evolutionists claim this happened over hundreds of thousands of yeas or millions of years, or don't they know how long it took for an ape to turn into a human being and how many mutations it took? :o

Do evolutionists not believe in natural selection? :o

So which part of evolution am I misrepresenting? Or don't evolutionists themselves understand evolution enough to agree on what it is? Thank you.

Here is one example of a straw man from this thread, where you said:


"Humans reproduce each other which evolutionists don't seem to know. But the first human couldn't have come from a human or an animal since no animal has ever produced a human being."

It is my understanding that: Evolutionists claim that we transition slowly. We generally accept that small changes occur in offspring, such as your child having slightly different characteristics from you. If we go through extreme amounts of time through our family tree, we will find people that do not resemble us much at all. The same concept is applicable to evolution, only longer periods of time. We look far back and see where we came from, and they are so different that we decide to classify them as a different species.

Here's a simplified example for you:
Let us say that a nose of 2 inches constitutes being reclassified as a different species from one that is 1 inch. We start off with a 1 inch nosed creature.

That one inch nosed creature produces offspring that has a 1.2 inch nose. That offspring produces a creature with a 1.4 inch nose. That offspring produces a creature with a 1.6 inch nose. That offspring produces a creature with a 1.8 inch nose. The 1.8 inch nosed creature produces offspring that has a 2 inch nose.

The 2 inch nose is technically a new species, different from the 1 inch nosed person down the family tree. The 1.8 inch nose person will not think that he produced a "new species" because it really isn't much different than him. However, we are inclined to say that the one inch nosed ancestor should be classified as a different species because there is a significant difference.

We see that there is no clear and obvious instance of a one inched nosed "beast" producing a two inch nosed "human" - but we realize that we did originate from the one inch nosed "beast." You have frequently said that evolutionists say that beasts have bred humans, but this is an oversimplification of what they are talking about. Beasts have bred things that look more like us over extended periods of time until we have difficulty differentiating them from us. An apelike creature didn't just pop out a human as you seem to imply.

There are scientific debates about the exact methodology of which factors play the biggest role in the transition of one species to the other, but there is nearly unanimous agreement that it does occur. This is a reasonable conclusion from the mountains and mountains of data. I don't have the exact dates in which this has said to occur, but it does not change the conclusion that evolution does not happen, so it's really not important.

And to answer your other question, it is my understanding that evolutionists do believe in natural selection.

 

[Heidi]

Since I've been accused of misrepresenting evolution, then would someone please tell me which of my assumptions is incorrect. It's easy to attack people. It's much harder to back up their attacks with examples and explanations.

So do evolutionists not claim that humans evolved from an ape of primate? If they don't claim that humans evolved from an ape or primate, then where do they claim that humans came from? :o If they do claim that humans evolved from an ape or primate, then by claiming I don't understand evolution, they are again denying their own theory. :o So which is it? I'd like a clear concise explanation for once instead of attacks against me that aren't being backed up. :roll:

Do evolutionists not know that mating and breeding is what produces descendants? If so, then do evolutionists claim this happened over hundreds of thousands of yeas or millions of years, or don't they know how long it took for an ape to turn into a human being and how many mutations it took? :o

Do evolutionists not believe in natural selection? :o

So which part of evolution am I misrepresenting? Or don't evolutionists themselves understand evolution enough to agree on what it is? Thank you.

Here is one example of a straw man from this thread, where you said:


"Humans reproduce each other which evolutionists don't seem to know. But the first human couldn't have come from a human or an animal since no animal has ever produced a human being."

It is my understanding that: Evolutionists claim that we transition slowly. We generally accept that small changes occur in offspring, such as your child having slightly different characteristics from you. If we go through extreme amounts of time through our family tree, we will find people that do not resemble us much at all. The same concept is applicable to evolution, only longer periods of time. We look far back and see where we came from, and they are so different that we decide to classify them as a different species.

Here's a simplified example for you:
Let us say that a nose of 2 inches constitutes being reclassified as a different species from one that is 1 inch. We start off with a 1 inch nosed creature.

That one inch nosed creature produces offspring that has a 1.2 inch nose. That offspring produces a creature with a 1.4 inch nose. That offspring produces a creature with a 1.6 inch nose. That offspring produces a creature with a 1.8 inch nose. The 1.8 inch nosed creature produces offspring that has a 2 inch nose.

The 2 inch nose is technically a new species, different from the 1 inch nosed person down the family tree. The 1.8 inch nose person will not think that he produced a "new species" because it really isn't much different than him. However, we are inclined to say that the one inch nosed ancestor should be classified as a different species because there is a significant difference.

We see that there is no clear and obvious instance of a one inched nosed "beast" producing a two inch nosed "human" - but we realize that we did originate from the one inch nosed "beast." You have frequently said that evolutionists say that beasts have bred humans, but this is an oversimplification of what they are talking about. Beasts have bred things that look more like us over extended periods of time until we have difficulty differentiating them from us. An apelike creature didn't just pop out a human as you seem to imply.

There are scientific debates about the exact methodology of which factors play the biggest role in the transition of one species to the other, but there is nearly unanimous agreement that it does occur. This is a reasonable conclusion from the mountains and mountains of data. I don't have the exact dates in which this has said to occur, but it does not change the conclusion that evolution does not happen, so it's really not important.

And to answer your other question, it is my understanding that evolutionists do believe in natural selection.

You're saying nothing different than I've said. You are still claiming that apes bred human beings whether it took a gazillions years or 9 months, are you not? By your claims we could have been the descendants of giraffes through minor changes over hundreds of thousands of years. Their necks became shorter, their faces got thincker, their tails dropped off, etc. :

What you don't understand is that changes only occur within each species. That means that there will be a variety of humans within the human race. Thus, human parents will produce a variety of human offspring. Lion parents will produce a vareity of lion offspring. Tiger parents will produce a variety of tiger offspring, and so on and and so forth. That does not mean that any animal can turn into another animal because of the simple fact that not every animal can breed with other animals, nor can animals and humans interbreed. Thus one cannot be the descendant of the other. And that's where evolutionists go completely off the deep end.

So all you've shown is that not only do I correctly understand what evolutionists claim, but I also understand why evolution is impossible and evolutionists do not.

So you have made false claims when you claim that I don't understand evolution. The "Natural selection" theory is also false because the fit and the unfit always co-exist within each species. The unfit don't die any faster than the fit do. In addition, proliferation in breeding doesn't maintain superior offspring because all offspring are just as susceptible to accidents, disease and natural disasters as offspring from non-prolific parents are. As a matter of fact, abortion and homosexuality decrease the number of viable offsrping which thus reduces the number of humans in the human race. So the natural selection theory is just as false as the theory of evolution is.

You have also neglected to tell us what superior species humans will develop into; gods? :o Please explain that one also. ;-)

 

[Dunzo]

What you don't understand is that changes only occur within each species. That means that there will be a variety of humans within the human race. Thus, human parents will produce a variety of human offspring. Lion parents will produce a vareity of lion offspring. Tiger parents will produce a variety of tiger offspring, and so on and and so forth. That does not mean that any animal can turn into another animal because of the simple fact that not every animal can breed with other animals, nor can animals and humans interbreed. Thus one cannot be the descendant of the other. And that's where evolutionists go completely off the deep end.

Species do not need to interbreed for evolution to occur!

So all you've shown is that not only do I correctly understand what evolutionists claim, but I also understand why evolution is impossible and evolutionists do not.

Yes, Heidi, you've thoroughly discredited more than 150 years of research by thousand of people with the simple exclamation that "Apes don't breed human offspring!". I bet if you went up to Richard Dawkins and told him that he'd shout "Holy shit! I never thought of that! My life... a waste!"

No. That isn't going to happen. Don't be so arrogant, Heidi.

So you have made false claims when you claim that I don't understand evolution. The "Natural selection" theory is also false because the fit and the unfit always co-exist within each species. The unfit don't die any faster than the fit do.

Are you serious? If a slow gazelle and a fast gazelle are being chased by a lion, you'd hypothesize that they both have the same chance of surviving?

In addition, proliferation in breeding doesn't maintain superior offspring because all offspring are just as susceptible to accidents, disease and natural disasters as offspring from non-prolific parents are.

No. A fast gazelle is more likely to have quicker reactions and a more effective immune system than the slower, fatter gazelle.

As a matter of fact, abortion and homosexuality decrease the number of viable offsrping which thus reduces the number of humans in the human race. So the natural selection theory is just as false as the theory of evolution is.

So hold on... Somebody with a harmful mutation is less likely to reproduce and pass on their genes? And natural selection is false, you say?

You have also neglected to tell us what superior species humans will develop into; gods? :o Please explain that one also. ;-)

Could've sworn I've covered this one...
"Superior" is the wrong word because evolution is an unguided process. Who's to say that humans are "superior" to frogs? We're smarter than them, obviously, but they're better at croaking, swimming, and catching insects. The simple answer is that there's no way to tell. Evolution is the "Blind Watchmaker", after all. We'll probably end up with larger brains. That's all I can say.

 

[Jayls5]

You're saying nothing different than I've said. You are still claiming that apes bred human beings whether it took a gazillions years or 9 months, are you not? By your claims we could have been the descendants of giraffes through minor changes over hundreds of thousands of years. Their necks became shorter, their faces got thincker, their tails dropped off, etc. :

Did you not read what I wrote?

You will not find an example of an human popping out of an ape. You will find examples of a slow and gradual change from an ape until you cannot distinguish it from a human. This does not occur in human lifetime, or even several human lifetimes. Humans do not live long in the scope of the natural world.

Hypothetically, given enough time and perfect circumstances, I don't see why a giraffe couldn't eventually go through enough changes so it resembled a human. The amount of time would be almost inconceivably long though. I don't think the question is really all that pertinent to the discussion. Both currently exist, so asking if one could be an ancestor of the other doesn't make much sense.

What you don't understand is that changes only occur within each species. That means that there will be a variety of humans within the human race. Thus, human parents will produce a variety of human offspring. Lion parents will produce a vareity of lion offspring. Tiger parents will produce a variety of tiger offspring, and so on and and so forth. That does not mean that any animal can turn into another animal because of the simple fact that not every animal can breed with other animals, nor can animals and humans interbreed. Thus one cannot be the descendant of the other. And that's where evolutionists go completely off the deep end.

Yes, we don't see tigers producing random other creatures. We do, however, have several instances of species that can breed with other creatures, which has been shown to you in detail in another thread. Interbreeding with other species is not necessary for evolution though. If you are asserting it, this would be another false claim against evolution.

We do see minor changes between parents and their offspring. You can actually tell from the bone structure of the skeleton alone whether a human was of african american descent. If you accept that minor changes can occur, why can you not accept that the changes can eventually amount to something that is worthy of reclassification?

We have seen dinosaurs that eventually grew feathers, and we are inclined to ask ourselves "Why is it unreasonable to think that certain ones eventually changed into birds?"

So all you've shown is that not only do I correctly understand what evolutionists claim, but I also understand why evolution is impossible and evolutionists do not.

No, you have blatantly disregarded what I said.

So you have made false claims when you claim that I don't understand evolution. The "Natural selection" theory is also false because the fit and the unfit always co-exist within each species. The unfit don't die any faster than the fit do. In addition, proliferation in breeding doesn't maintain superior offspring because all offspring are just as susceptible to accidents, disease and natural disasters as offspring from non-prolific parents are. As a matter of fact, abortion and homosexuality decrease the number of viable offsrping which thus reduces the number of humans in the human race. So the natural selection theory is just as false as the theory of evolution is.

I have not made false claims that you do not understand evolution. I have made true claims that you do not understand evolution. That must be the case, or you understand evolution and choose to misrepresent it.

Natural selection is the most obvious and intuitive thing around. Granted, we do find plenty of examples where an inferior version of a species is co-existing with a superior. This is irrelevant. Think of any situation where a certain trait in a species is pivotal for survival. The classic, of course, is the lion chasing two Gazelle. The Gazelle that is quicker due to biological superiority will be the more likely one to survive. Coincidentally, the dead one is given a lot less time and likelihood procreating. We actually see multiple species fight for breeding rights, and the "best" animal is always the one to pass on its traits. If this practice was not beneficial, the species would have died out.

Whenever you ask yourself why a certain species looks a certain way, it always seems to be somewhat useful for surviving in the environment. Coincidentally, we also see countless species that have died out in the fossil record that happened to not have adequate traits for survival. It is this blind driving force to survive that leads to changes that can eventually justify reclassification.

Funny you should mention disease. Due to the huge numbers involved, we can see evolution happen on a micro scale within our lifetime. We currently have superbugs being created due to the widespread use of antibiotics. Some strains of bacteria have adapted and become resistant to our efforts to destroy them. My father has seen people with this at the hospital where he works, and they must be quarantined until they either die or their immune system slowly fights it off until the adapted strain has been completely annihilated.

Your mention about homosexuality and abortion is a whole different discussion. Assuming that neither are beneficial to the human race, the practice will eventually die out. First of all, a human that practices abortion does not mean that they abort all of their children. Secondly, there are plenty of instances of homosexual men who still procreate at some point in their life. In either case, we really don't know enough about either practice yet to have a firm grasp of their absolute causes and their relationship to an evolutionist perspective. That truly is a separate debate, which I will happy to investigate with you in another thread.

You have also neglected to tell us what superior species humans will develop into; gods? :o Please explain that one also. ;-)

I don't know what humans will develop into. I can tell you one thing though. Their traits will probably work well with the environment of the future.


(edit: typo)

 

[Heidi]

You're saying nothing different than I've said. You are still claiming that apes bred human beings whether it took a gazillions years or 9 months, are you not? By your claims we could have been the descendants of giraffes through minor changes over hundreds of thousands of years. Their necks became shorter, their faces got thincker, their tails dropped off, etc. :

Did you not read what I wrote?

You will not find an example of an human popping out of an ape. You will find examples of a slow and gradual change from an ape until you cannot distinguish it from a human. This does not occur in human lifetime, or even several human lifetimes. Humans do not live long in the scope of the natural world.

Hypothetically, given enough time and perfect circumstances, I don't see why a giraffe couldn't eventually go through enough changes so it resembled a human. The amount of time would be almost inconceivably long though. I don't think the question is really all that pertinent to the discussion. Both currently exist, so asking if one could be an ancestor of the other doesn't make much sense.

What you don't understand is that changes only occur within each species. That means that there will be a variety of humans within the human race. Thus, human parents will produce a variety of human offspring. Lion parents will produce a vareity of lion offspring. Tiger parents will produce a variety of tiger offspring, and so on and and so forth. That does not mean that any animal can turn into another animal because of the simple fact that not every animal can breed with other animals, nor can animals and humans interbreed. Thus one cannot be the descendant of the other. And that's where evolutionists go completely off the deep end.

Yes, we don't see tigers producing random other creatures. We do, however, have several instances of species that can breed with other creatures, which has been shown to you in detail in another thread. Interbreeding with other species is not necessary for evolution though. If you are asserting it, this would be another false claim against evolution.

We do see minor changes between parents and their offspring. You can actually tell from the bone structure of the skeleton alone whether a human was of african american descent. If you accept that minor changes can occur, why can you not accept that the changes can eventually amount to something that is worthy of reclassification?

We have seen dinosaurs that eventually grew feathers, and we are inclined to ask ourselves "Why is it unreasonable to think that certain ones eventually changed into birds?"

[quote:a29e4]
So all you've shown is that not only do I correctly understand what evolutionists claim, but I also understand why evolution is impossible and evolutionists do not.

No, you have blatantly disregarded what I said.

So you have made false claims when you claim that I don't understand evolution. The "Natural selection" theory is also false because the fit and the unfit always co-exist within each species. The unfit don't die any faster than the fit do. In addition, proliferation in breeding doesn't maintain superior offspring because all offspring are just as susceptible to accidents, disease and natural disasters as offspring from non-prolific parents are. As a matter of fact, abortion and homosexuality decrease the number of viable offsrping which thus reduces the number of humans in the human race. So the natural selection theory is just as false as the theory of evolution is.

I have not made false claims that you do not understand evolution. I have made true claims that you do not understand evolution. That must be the case, or you understand evolution and choose to misrepresent it.

Natural selection is the most obvious and intuitive thing around. Granted, we do find plenty of examples where an inferior version of a species is co-existing with a superior. This is irrelevant. Think of any situation where a certain trait in a species is pivotal for survival. The classic, of course, is the lion chasing two Gazelle. The Gazelle that is quicker due to biological superiority will be the more likely one to survive. Coincidentally, the dead one is given a lot less time and likelihood procreating. We actually see multiple species fight for breeding rights, and the "best" animal is always the one to pass on its traits. If this practice was not beneficial, the species would have died out.

Whenever you ask yourself why a certain species looks a certain way, it always seems to be somewhat useful for surviving in the environment. Coincidentally, we also see countless species that have died out in the fossil record that happened to not have adequate traits for survival. It is this blind driving force to survive that leads to changes that can eventually justify reclassification.

Funny you should mention disease. Due to the huge numbers involved, we can see evolution happen on a micro scale within our lifetime. We currently have superbugs being created due to the widespread use of antibiotics. Some strains of bacteria have adapted and become resistant to our efforts to destroy them. My father has seen people with this at the hospital where he works, and they must be quarantined until they either die or their immune system slowly fights it off until the adapted strain has been completely annihilated.

Your mention about homosexuality and abortion is a whole different discussion. Assuming that neither are beneficial to the human race, the practice will eventually die out. First of all, a human that practices abortion does not mean that they abort all of their children. Secondly, there are plenty of instances of homosexual men who still procreate at some point in their life. In either case, we really don't know enough about either practice yet to have a firm grasp of their absolute causes and their relationship to an evolutionist perspective. That truly is a separate debate, which I will happy to investigate with you in another thread.

You have also neglected to tell us what superior species humans will develop into; gods? :o Please explain that one also. ;-)

I don't know what humans will develop into. I can tell you one thing though. Their traits will probably work well with the environment of the future.


(edit: typo)[/quote:a29e4]

That's a lie. Tigers do not procude anything but tigers unless they are cross-bred with lions. But their hybrid is then sterile as all hybrids are which means that humans could not be the hybrid of an ape and some other animal.

So if you have to lie to make a case, then you have no case. And I'm not going to stay here and liten to lies.

Sorry, but if evolution is true, then there had to be a point when the last transitional species bred a fully formed human. So you are making false statements again. It doesn't appear that evolutionists can make any true statements.

:o How can you have seen a dinsosaur grow feathers when no dinosaur has been alive in the last "million" years? :o So that's another lie. One made-up story after another. :roll:

Your last statement is as much science fiction as the rest of your statements. What could happen in reality is called science fiction as the whole theory of evolution is which is proven by your fictitious statements. One made-up story after another.

 

[Dunzo]

That's a lie. Tigers do not procude anything but tigers unless they are cross-bred with lions. But their hybrid is then sterile as all hybrids are which means that humans could not be the hybrid of an ape and some other animal.

What's a lie? I don't see anything in Jayls5's post about tigers producing anything but tigers. Also, I've never heard about humans being hybrids, so I don't know what you're trying to refute.

So if you have to lie to make a case, then you have no case. And I'm not going to stay here and liten to lies.

How beautifully ironic.

Sorry, but if evolution is true, then there had to be a point when the last transitional species bred a fully formed human. So you are making false statements again. It doesn't appear that evolutionists can make any true statements.

Not really. It does seem awfully counter-intuitive, but the borders between species are so blurred that there is no point where you can say that a child is a human and the parent is an advanced ape.

:o How can you have seen a dinsosaur grow feathers when no dinosaur has been alive in the last "million" years? :o So that's another lie. One made-up story after another. :roll:

Yeah, Jayls5, stop making blatantly false statements. Please, do your research.

 

[Heidi]

That's a lie. Tigers do not procude anything but tigers unless they are cross-bred with lions. But their hybrid is then sterile as all hybrids are which means that humans could not be the hybrid of an ape and some other animal.

What's a lie? I don't see anything in Jayls5's post about tigers producing anything but tigers. Also, I've never heard about humans being hybrids, so I don't know what you're trying to refute.

So if you have to lie to make a case, then you have no case. And I'm not going to stay here and liten to lies.

How beautifully ironic.

[quote:3f805]Sorry, but if evolution is true, then there had to be a point when the last transitional species bred a fully formed human. So you are making false statements again. It doesn't appear that evolutionists can make any true statements.

Not really. It does seem awfully counter-intuitive, but the borders between species are so blurred that there is no point where you can say that a child is a human and the parent is an advanced ape.

:o How can you have seen a dinsosaur grow feathers when no dinosaur has been alive in the last "million" years? :o So that's another lie. One made-up story after another. :roll:

Yeah, Jayls5, stop making blatantly false statements. Please, do your research.[/quote:3f805]

Excuse, me, I misread his post. : Of course tigers can breed with other creatures but apes can't breed with humans so there's no way for apes or humans to produce each other as pffsrping. So his point is moot anyway. ;-)

excuse, me, but are you claiming that dinosaurs exist in the present world? If not, then how can one see it grow feathers? :o Or is this just another fantasy of what humans imagine happened to a dinosaur? ;-) So which is it? :-?

 

[Dunzo]

Excuse, me, I misread his post. : Of course tigers can breed with other creatures but apes can't breed with humans so there's no way for apes or humans to produce each other as pffsrping. So his point is moot anyway. ;-)

It seems you're misreading a lot of people's posts.
Interbreeding is not a necessity for evolution.

excuse, me, but are you claiming that dinosaurs exist in the present world? If not, then how can one see it grow feathers? :o Or is this just another fantasy of what humans imagine happened to a dinosaur? ;-) So which is it? :-?

You didn't even bother to click on my link.

One day, while examining the forearm, or ulna, of a Velociraptor dug up in Mongolia in 1998, Turner made an interesting discovery.

"I just happened to feel these couple of bumps along the backside. And it was like, 'Oh, that's very interesting,'" he recalled. "And then I kind of let it pass. And then I was thinking about it more later on, and that's when I took it to the high powered microscopes and realized it has all these other features that you would expect to see if it was a quill knob."

The quill knobs found on Velociraptor are regularly spaced bumps along the ulna where flight or wing feathers would have been attached.

"And when you compare them to the ulna of a bird, you see that they correspond quite closely to these quill knobs," he added. "These wouldn't have been flight feathers in the Velociraptor, because it's an animal that's much too big to have flown. But it still shows that feathers were attached to the bone there."