[_ Old Earth _] More contradictions by evolutionists

[Heidi]

Re: did ya

This is not an issue of fact finding , it is an issue of holding on to beliefs which according to evidence should not and cannot any longer be rationalized. Heidi has asked questions and she has been answered repeatedly however she refuses to acknowledge the new information or still does not understand it.Perhaps the new information is just too shocking to admit it as true .We have shown Heidi evidence of evolution of the past but evolution as it occurs today. We have given the definition of primates and explained what man is. We have explained man is not an ape but a species unto himself.Unfortunately some of those who have thought they understood evolution DO NOT and have therefore spread false info. I cannot apologize for them but that does not mean evolution is false. Evolution is real , it occurs, and has occurred throughout history. I for one do understand the frustration shown here in these latest posts and have come to the conclusion the answer lies not in the information given or not given but in the readers ability to accept it.

Sorry but the new information comes and goes each season because it comes from fallible minds. So I have a question for you: When scientists change their minds again and reject today's theories, will you believe the new theories or the ones they endorse now? :o If you follow the theories they have now but will reject later, then how do you know those theories are correct if scientists themselves change them? But if you change your mind with the scientists, then you're putting your faith in shifting sand and saying the theories right now aren't true. Either way, you're showing the fallibility of their theories.

And where's the proof that primates bred creatures that turned into human beings? Animals don't do it today. But evolutionists claim they did it before there were witnnesses. I'm not talking about the imagination, I'm talking about proof that primates breed creatures that turn into humans. Please show us that that happened. You first have to come up with the missing link to do that. Then you have to prove that a cell can produce new genes on its own that are not damged. Then you have to show that this happened by accident over and over and over again. Again, I'm not talking about the imagination, I'm talking about actual proof that a primate turned into a human being over millions of years. :wink:

 

[Heidi]

I also want to add that looking at a cat and saying it came from a dog because they have many traits in common is not proof that a cat came from a dog. You have to show that dogs breed cats. That is proof, otherwise, it's a theory. But that's precisely what evolutionists do with apes and humans! They look at apes and say they look like humans so surmise that humans came from apes even though it's never been observed. They simply invent elaborate scenarios (that are impossible by the way) and call those facts. In theory, anything's possible. In theory, cats can come from dogs if they're able to mate with each other. But since they cannot, then dogs cannot breed cats and neither can primates breed humans. It's only a story (and a ludicrous one at that) that they want the public to buy because they hope people won't think deeply enough to see the impossibility of such a claim. And the public does buy it simply because some people have earned a degree. Most people simply assume that those with a degree are omniscient, which if of course, nothing but a deception.

 

[Frost Giant]

Evolution doesn't say that dogs give birth to cats.

 

[Heidi]

Evolution doesn't say that dogs give birth to cats.

That's because it doesn't matter to them if cats came from dogs. The only thing that matters to them is trying to prove that the biblical account of man's existence is wrong. Period. That's why this whole theory came about or they would simply believe the biblical account of creation. And there's another reason why they say that cats don't come from dogs; because dogs cannot breed cats and they know it. And neither can apes breed humans. So what they say to this, is once upon a time, apes could breed humans. And since no one was there to prove them wrong, they call it a fact. Sorry, but unless there's proof that primates can breed creautres that turn into humans, it's still just a story.

 

[WillyGilligan]

I also want to add that looking at a cat and saying it came from a dog because they have many traits in common is not proof that a cat came from a dog. You have to show that dogs breed cats. That is proof, otherwise, it's a theory. But that's precisely what evolutionists do with apes and humans! They look at apes and say they look like humans so surmise that humans came from apes even though it's never been observed. They simply invent elaborate scenarios (that are impossible by the way) and call those facts. In theory, anything's possible. In theory, cats can come from dogs if they're able to mate with each other. But since they cannot, then dogs cannot breed cats and neither can primates breed humans. It's only a story (and a ludicrous one at that) that they want the public to buy because they hope people won't think deeply enough to see the impossibility of such a claim. And the public does buy it simply because some people have earned a degree. Most people simply assume that those with a degree are omniscient, which if of course, nothing but a deception.

Heidi, I'm just going to point out that if cats and dogs could successfully breed with each other, we most likely wouldn't consider them to be separate species. That's part of the package deal with being a species, that it's members can produce fertile offspring with each other. What evolution is claiming, as I understand it, is that members of one species can devolop over generations to the point where they can no longer breed with other members of their original species, making them a different species altogether, though they would still be related to the original species as part of a larger grouping (Genus, for example) but not able to breed with each other.

This would, to my mind, require inbreeding rather than interbreeding. Can anyon more versed in evolutionary theory correct me if I'm wrong in that? Dawkins is on my 'to read' list, but so are a lot of other things.

 

[armed2010]

Carico, I am more than certain that I have pushed very hard that the species ape (not the family ape) does not breed humans. Once again, having one species suddenly give birth to a completley new species would go against evolution. Such a creature would have nothing to mate with because the population it is born into would not be capable of breeding with it, thus it would simply die off without breeding.

I shall now repeat what I have been saying. One species does not suddenly give birth to a new species. A population of a species gives birth to the same species, but the new offspring has small genetic differences in it from mutations. This is how it is with all life. Now then, as offspring grow up, pass on their genes, have offspring which are slightly different genetically due to mutations, these changes start to add up over millions of years. Certain traits that prove advantageous based on current environmental conditions start to become more apparant in the population, as the individuals that have the traits are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. A point is reached where after millions of years of these little genetic differences adding up and different traits appearing, the resulting population would be too genetically different to interbreed with the population of their past. It wasn't that an individual from the population of the past suddenly gave birth to an individual in the population of the future, it is simply that the entire population changed over time, and if you were to somehow magically time travel one of the future individuals to the past, or vice versa, you would find that they would be unable to mate. This is when we have a new species.

*phew* Please tell me that you atleast understand this Carico. Species A did not suddenly give birth to Species B. The entire population of Species A, after millions of years of mutation and natural selection, slowly changed to Species Aa, Aaa, Aaaa, Aaaaa, etc, until the entire population reaches a point, Species B, where they can no longer mate with what would be classifiefd as Species A.

 

[Heidi]

Carico, I am more than certain that I have pushed very hard that the species ape (not the family ape) does not breed humans. Once again, having one species suddenly give birth to a completley new species would go against evolution. Such a creature would have nothing to mate with because the population it is born into would not be capable of breeding with it, thus it would simply die off without breeding.

I shall now repeat what I have been saying. One species does not suddenly give birth to a new species. A population of a species gives birth to the same species, but the new offspring has small genetic differences in it from mutations. This is how it is with all life. Now then, as offspring grow up, pass on their genes, have offspring which are slightly different genetically due to mutations, these changes start to add up over millions of years. Certain traits that prove advantageous based on current environmental conditions start to become more apparant in the population, as the individuals that have the traits are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. A point is reached where after millions of years of these little genetic differences adding up and different traits appearing, the resulting population would be too genetically different to interbreed with the population of their past. It wasn't that an individual from the population of the past suddenly gave birth to an individual in the population of the future, it is simply that the entire population changed over time, and if you were to somehow magically time travel one of the future individuals to the past, or vice versa, you would find that they would be unable to mate. This is when we have a new species.

*phew* Please tell me that you atleast understand this Carico. Species A did not suddenly give birth to Species B. The entire population of Species A, after millions of years of mutation and natural selection, slowly changed to Species Aa, Aaa, Aaaa, Aaaaa, etc, until the entire population reaches a point, Species B, where they can no longer mate with what would be classifiefd as Species A.

So you're claiming that primates turn into human beings without mating with a half-man, half-beast. Is that correct? If so, then why the need for a common ancestor? :o Why not say that 2 primates simply gave birth to creatures that turned into human beings if their offspring simply muted into humans by accident millions of times?

By your reasoning, then humans can turn into tigers over time without us mating with tigers. But we cannot do that because we don't have the same genes as tigers. And neither do apes have the same genes as humans or they would have been turning into humans since the beginning of recorded history. But they haven't. So this scenario is only in the imaginations of evolutionists.

Evolutionists have zero clue what causes genes to be passed along to offspring. It doesn't come from them turning into other species all on their own which evolutionists try to tell us that mutation causes. Genes are passed along to their offspring through the mating between their parents, thus mixing their genes. And once evolutionists figure out what most everyone else knows, they will understand that. So you can't get around the fact that evolutionists are suggesting bestiality unless...you don't know that the mating between parents is what causes genes to be passed along. If that's the case, then you simply need to get out of your imagination and go to a zoo to see what each animal breeds. Only then will you know the truth.

 

[armed2010]

Carico, I am more than certain that I have pushed very hard that the species ape (not the family ape) does not breed humans. Once again, having one species suddenly give birth to a completley new species would go against evolution. Such a creature would have nothing to mate with because the population it is born into would not be capable of breeding with it, thus it would simply die off without breeding.

I shall now repeat what I have been saying. One species does not suddenly give birth to a new species. A population of a species gives birth to the same species, but the new offspring has small genetic differences in it from mutations. This is how it is with all life. Now then, as offspring grow up, pass on their genes, have offspring which are slightly different genetically due to mutations, these changes start to add up over millions of years. Certain traits that prove advantageous based on current environmental conditions start to become more apparant in the population, as the individuals that have the traits are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. A point is reached where after millions of years of these little genetic differences adding up and different traits appearing, the resulting population would be too genetically different to interbreed with the population of their past. It wasn't that an individual from the population of the past suddenly gave birth to an individual in the population of the future, it is simply that the entire population changed over time, and if you were to somehow magically time travel one of the future individuals to the past, or vice versa, you would find that they would be unable to mate. This is when we have a new species.

*phew* Please tell me that you atleast understand this Carico. Species A did not suddenly give birth to Species B. The entire population of Species A, after millions of years of mutation and natural selection, slowly changed to Species Aa, Aaa, Aaaa, Aaaaa, etc, until the entire population reaches a point, Species B, where they can no longer mate with what would be classifiefd as Species A.

So you're claiming that primates turn into human beings without mating with a half-man, half-beast. Is that correct? If so, then why the need for a common ancestor? :o Why not say that 2 primates simply gave birth to creatures that turned into human beings if their offspring simply muted into humans by accident millions of times?

By your reasoning, then humans can turn into tigers over time without us mating with tigers. But we cannot do that because we don't have the same genes as tigers. And neither do apes have the same genes as humans or they would have been turning into humans since the beginning of recorded history. But they haven't. So this scenario is only in the imaginations of evolutionists.

Evolutionists have zero clue what causes genes to be passed along to offspring. It doesn't come from them turning into other species all on their own which evolutionists try to tell us that mutation causes. Genes are passed along to their offspring through the mating between their parents, thus mixing their genes. And once evolutionists figure out what most everyone else knows, they will understand that. So you can't get around the fact that evolutionists are suggesting bestiality unless...you don't know that the mating between parents is what causes genes to be passed along. If that's the case, then you simply need to get out of your imagination and go to a zoo to see what each animal breeds. Only then will you know the truth.

Common ancestors occur when segments of a population seperate and develop individually. Some parts of Species A diverge from Group 1 and make Group 2, and thus they are seperated from the original population and that populations gene pool. Over millions of years, both groups develop seperately and you eventually have 2 different species, Species B in one place and Species C in another, and both of these group have a common ancestor in Species A.

Also
Um, Heidi, when did I ever suggest that the passing of genes didn't occur through the mating of parents? Parents mate, alleles are transfered. But during this allele transfer, there are mutations within the genetic code, and thus the resulting offspring is not a perfect 50/50 copy of the parent.

About humans turning into Tigers, that would be a convergences of completely different evolutionary tree branches, and would go against the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Heidi]

So how did this common ancestor develop the traits of a human? :o Just luck or accidental mutation? If it's the latter, then why do huamns not develop the traits of tigers by accident? :o More luck? Or maybe our genes just get tired of changing by themselves all the time. Or don't we have to be able to breed with tigers in order to acquire their genes which is the way all animals procreate? If so, then how are you not suggesting bestiality by saying that apes and humans have to be able to breed in order to say that humans came from apes? :-?

Too many contradictions and unanswered questions. :wink:

 

[Frost Giant]

Well, you're partly right. To create humans, our ancestors furthest ape ancestors would have had to have mated with a "half-man/half-beast" type animal. But, it would have been more like "1/100-man/99/100-beast". Evolution doesn't make large jumps. It goes very slowly. Monkies don't reproduce and BAM! man. Monkies reproduced and BAM! something that had maybe 1 trait that humans possess popped out.

 

[Frost Giant]

So how did this common ancestor develop the traits of a human? :o Just luck or accidental mutation?

I think you're catching on now!

If it's the latter, then why do huamns not develop the traits of tigers by accident?

Eh, or maybe you aren't. We DO have some traits of tigers. We have eyes, just like tigers. And legs, just like tigers. More evidence for a common ancestor. Thanks for that!

Too many contradictions and unanswered questions. :wink:

Have some intellectual honesty pie please. It really doesn't taste all that bad.

 

[Heidi]

So how did this common ancestor develop the traits of a human? :o Just luck or accidental mutation?

I think you're catching on now!

If it's the latter, then why do huamns not develop the traits of tigers by accident?

Eh, or maybe you aren't. We DO have some traits of tigers. We have eyes, just like tigers. And legs, just like tigers. More evidence for a common ancestor. Thanks for that!
[quote:368ee]Too many contradictions and unanswered questions. :wink:

Have some intellectual honesty pie please. It really doesn't taste all that bad.[/quote:368ee]

So, why are our offsrping not tigers? :o You again are claiming that animals genes can change into human genes on their own which is not only ludicrous, but impossible as well.

Intellectual honesty does not openly lie without a conscience. So either you don't know that mating and breeding is what passes along genes through the century, or you do know it and are openly lying about it. I suspect the latter because even most children know about the birds and the bees. So which is it? :o

 

[WillyGilligan]

So, why are our offsrping not tigers? :o You again are claiming that animals genes can change into human genes on their own which is not only ludicrous, but impossible as well.

Intellectual honesty does not openly lie without a conscience. So either you don't know that mating and breeding is what passes along genes through the century, or you do know it and are openly lying about it. I suspect the latter because even most children know about the birds and the bees. So which is it? :o

Our offspring are not tigers for the same reason that I'm not going to wake up on the moon tomorrow. There are steps to be taken to get there, and I'm not going to get there without taking the many steps along the way.

 

[Grengor]

Our offspring are not tigers for the same reason that I'm not going to wake up on the moon tomorrow. There are steps to be taken to get there, and I'm not going to get there without taking the many steps along the way.

Heidi doesn't actually listen :P
She's had her questions answered numerous times on other forums, but she's not here to actually discuss things. She asks a questions, when answeres are given she gives totally inadequite rebuttals. But then again there's always Poe's law.

 

[reznwerks]

genes

[
So, why are our offsrping not tigers? :o You again are claiming that animals genes can change into human genes on their own which is not only ludicrous, but impossible as well.
Listen up Heidi. FLASH "Animal" genes don't change into human genes because human genes are already animal genes.

I suspect the latter because even most children know about the birds and the bees. So which is it? :o
Why are you always veering into the subject of sex?

 

[Heidi]

Our offspring are not tigers for the same reason that I'm not going to wake up on the moon tomorrow. There are steps to be taken to get there, and I'm not going to get there without taking the many steps along the way.

Heidi doesn't actually listen :P
She's had her questions answered numerous times on other forums, but she's not here to actually discuss things. She asks a questions, when answeres are given she gives totally inadequite rebuttals. But then again there's always Poe's law.

Sorry, but I don't accept contradictions as answers. :wink:

 

[peace4all]

I think this has been said a billion times. Either she is not capable of understanding the basics....or she doesn't want to...which I think is likely.

I have read these last 2 or 3 arguments, and pretty much agree 100% with you here. I believe the others who are posting the facts here, have done an excellent job at trying to show heide , and it is not their bad teaching that is not allowing her to grasp this concept. it is something else.

 

[bibleberean]

This thread is going to be locked if:

It stays on a personal level.

Answer, refute, or remain silent but don't make these debates too personal.

Thanks,

Robert

 

[peace4all]

Sorry about that BB, feel free to delete my reply above yours.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: did ya

[

Sorry but the new information comes and goes each season because it comes from fallible minds.
Can you give some examples of any earth shattering changes regarding evolution. Iformation may have been tweeked to make things more accurate but nothing to my knowledge has changed the fact of evolution. Testing gets better and that leads to more accuracy and as knowledge accumulates that leads to better understanding. It is this approach to things that has led to better cars , medicine, technology etc etc. If we tossed things out because we became better at doing them we would still be riding horses and burning wood stoves.

So I have a question for you: When scientists change their minds again and reject today's theories, will you believe the new theories or the ones they endorse now? :o
If they show that the new knowledge is more accurate , absolutely. In your world you have to stock up on candles for light.

If you follow the theories they have now but will reject later, then how do you know those theories are correct if scientists themselves change them?
Scientists change the opinions based on the evidence not their personal opinion. Theists believe they have the answers not based on evidence but on something less and that is belief without evidence.

But if you change your mind with the scientists, then you're putting your faith in shifting sand and saying the theories right now aren't true. Either way, you're showing the fallibility of their theories.
I have no faith in theories. I have faith in what the evidence suggests which has been tested and observed. You put your faith in faith alone without evidence. Hard evidence trumps faith hands down.

And where's the proof that primates bred creatures that turned into human beings? Animals don't do it today.
No kidding. Humans breed humans as we have been trying to tell you all along.

But evolutionists claim they did it before there were witnnesses.
No they don't.

I'm not talking about the imagination, I'm talking about proof that primates breed creatures that turn into humans.
Man is a primate.

Please show us that that happened.
Don't have too. Evolutionists don't make this claim. You did.

You first have to come up with the missing link to do that. Then you have to prove that a cell can produce new genes on its own that are not damged. Then you have to show that this happened by accident over and over and over again. Again, I'm not talking about the imagination, I'm talking about actual proof that a primate turned into a human being over millions of years. :wink:
Evolutionists don't have to show this evidence because that is not what is being said. You have to prove it. Man is a creature that evolved by himself. Man is a primate just like an ape is a primate.