[_ Old Earth _] Reality

[Heidi]

Recorded history and present day reality have shown that nothing comes out of the womb of a species except traits inherent to that species, period. That is reality. No human on earth has ever witnessed reproduction as occurring any other way than that. That's why it's called reproduction. Reality is that cognition, the ability to rule the world, conition, speech, etc. are not inherent in the genes of an ape. Putting them there before men were around to put them there can be done only in the imagination, because apes are still breeding nothing but apes today.

But the human imagination is endless! That's what science fiction movies are all about. Any theory that contradicts reality is not the truth, but a lie. It's that simple. The theory of evolution comes from the hypothesis that we evolved from apes, but reality shows that nothing has come out of an ape but an ape in recorded history.

 

[jwu]

Evolution doesn't propose in any way that an individual gives birth to a member of another (new) species.

A will give birth to B. B is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than A.

B will give birth to C. C is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than B.

C will give birth to D. D is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than C.

and so on...


X will give birth to Y. Y is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than X. But meanwhile the changes have accumulated, and Y is no longer the same species as A.

 

[Heidi]

Evolution doesn't propose in any way that an individual gives birth to a member of another (new) species.

A will give birth to B. B is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than A.

B will give birth to C. C is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than B.

C will give birth to D. D is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than C.

and so on...


X will give birth to Y. Y is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than X. But meanwhile the changes have accumulated, and Y is no longer the same species as A.

I already know that evolution does not propone that apes directly bred humans as we know it today. Your second statement is what spawns the theory of evolution and it is the basis of what is flawed in the theory.

Again, how does an animal give birth to something so different as to give it a different name such as a "homonid"??? That is the issue here. How is that reproducing? It isn't!! It is creating a different species or you wouldn't give it a new name!!! That's like saying that humans don't breed humans but a human can breed a "homologen"!! The name that evolutionists gave that creature that came from an ape didn't even have a name that resembles an ape! They gave it a name that resembles the new species called humans. And if you can't see the tremendous differences between human beings and apes, then that's the first step you need to take to be in touch with reality, my friend.

This is preposterous and has never happened in recorded history. Never. And yet, evolutionists say it happened before there were any witnesses for the sole purpose of rebelling against the idea of God creating man. Period. Evolution is not only erroneous and impossible, it is rebellion plain & simply. And there is zero proof of it except conjecture. Absolutely none. It actually has less credence than the theory that we came from aliens who flew back into space because the alien theory doesn't contradict how species reproduce. Evolution does.

 

[jwu]

You seem to contradict yourself. First you say that you know that evolution doesn't propose that one species doesn't give birth to members of another species, then later you ask for evidence of exactly that:

I already know that evolution does not propone that apes directly bred humans as we know it today.

Again, how does an animal give birth to something so different as to give it a different name such as a "homonid"??? That is the issue here.

It is creating a different species or you wouldn't give it a new name!!!

Anyway,
i have explained to you above how it works. A member of a species always gives birth of another member of the same species as itself, if it is used as an exemplary individual of its own species and used to set the frame of reference. That's how it is today, and that's how it always used to be.

That does not mean that this newborn individual will be of the same species as its great great great great.............................................................................................................................................grandparents.

No matter how much you try to handwave it away, this process, speciation, has been observed in nature. It happens, if you like it or not.

This is preposterous and has never happened in recorded history. Never. And yet, evolutionists say it happened before there were any witnesses for the sole purpose of rebelling against the idea of God creating man. Period. Evolution is not only erroneous and impossible, it is rebellion plain & simply. And there is zero proof of it except conjecture. Absolutely none. It actually has less credence than the theory that we came from aliens who flew back into space because the alien theory doesn't contradict how species reproduce. Evolution does.

Once, again, you ignore the chromosome structure, ERV, cytochrome C and so on.

 

[Heidi]

Sorry, jwu, but you twisted my words. I said that humans as we know them today didn't come out of the womb of an ape. Apparently what evolutionists say is that a homonid came out of the womb of an ape, then a homospaiens came out of the womb of a homonid and so on and so forth & that's how they claim evolution happens.

But I have challenged their very first claim that a homonid came out of the womb of an ape because it contradicts the process of re production. Reproduction is species reproducing themselves, not producing offspring that you give a completely new name to!! That again is like calling my children "alaglabs" because they are not human!

So it is evolutionists who are contradicting themselves when they say that apes did not produce a new species, but then turn around and give the offspring of apes a new name! This is a glaring contradiction.

 

[jwu]

I'm sorry if it appeared as if i had twisted your words - i just understood them that way.

Apparently what evolutionists say is that a homonid came out of the womb of an ape, then a homospaiens came out of the womb of a homonid and so on and so forth & that's how they claim evolution happens.

Not really!

This is a frame of reference thing. There are no fixed definitions based on which one could say "that's a homonoid now". Species is the only "hard" classification, the rest of the classifications with genus and family and so on are quite fuzzy.

It would be more accurate to say that evolution states that a non-homonid gave birth to a 0.01%homonid/99.99% non-homoid. That one then gave birth to a 0.02% homonid/99.98% non-homonid and so on.

Homonoid is quite an arbitrary classification, there were many intermediates which are difficult to decide what they were.

But I have challenged their very first claim that a homonid came out of the womb of an ape because it contradicts the process of re production. Reproduction is species reproducing themselves, not producing offspring that you give a completely new name to!! That again is like calling my children "alaglabs" because they are not human!

Once again you argue against a member of a species giving birth to a member of a another species!

Ok...perhaps it would help if you would explain what you consider to be a "species"

 

[Heidi]

Another evasion. The bottom line is that evolutionists claim that apes gave birth to offspring so different from themselves that they gave them a new name! Again, that is not reproduction at all! The notion that animals give birth to a new species contradicts, not only the process of reproduction, but recorded history as well. Once again, the truth has no contradictions. Lies do. ;-)

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Another evasion. The bottom line is that evolutionists claim that apes gave birth to offspring so different from themselves that they gave them a new name!

No Heidi, we don't. The number of times you have said this, and been called on it is obscene.

 

[Heidi]

Another evasion. The bottom line is that evolutionists claim that apes gave birth to offspring so different from themselves that they gave them a new name!

No Heidi, we don't. The number of times you have said this, and been called on it is obscene.

If you have to lie to make your point, then your argument is not valid. Where did a homonid come from? Out of thin air? Where did homo sapiens come from? Out of thin air? Your arguments are contradictory which is how I know they're built on lies. There are so many lies in the theory of evolution, that evolutionists take back their premises all the time. Evolutionists can't even agree on how men evolved! One poster explained that primates bred homonids & homonids bred homo sapiens. Are you going to say that is not true now? Do you even know what evolutionists believe? :o Or can't they agree on what they believe?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Heidi, you haven't listened at all the number of times I've explained it. Go look at my first post in your evolution thread.

 

[peace4all]

heidi..

Have you ever seen 2 parents with blond hair, have a child wiht brown hair?

Have 2 short peopel ever made a all person?

what abotu 2 skinny ppl making a fat person?

what about all thos ebirth defects? when you have 2 regular people, have a child that has mental retardation?




Many fossil records show how soem of the smae species are slightly diffrent and diffrent and diffrent, and these slight changes build up over time, and the beginnign and end ar emuch diffrent.

or do you reall y think god took tha tmuch tiem and detail to make billions of diffrent of animals that all just had 1 tiny diffrence than its predescessor, and then went "hey man, i keep slowly adding nubs to these fish's backs, why not just give them toes, heck lets give them whole dang feet!"

 

[Heidi]

heidi..

Have you ever seen 2 parents with blond hair, have a child wiht brown hair?

Have 2 short peopel ever made a all person?

what abotu 2 skinny ppl making a fat person?

what about all thos ebirth defects? when you have 2 regular people, have a child that has mental retardation?




Many fossil records show how soem of the smae species are slightly diffrent and diffrent and diffrent, and these slight changes build up over time, and the beginnign and end ar emuch diffrent.

or do you reall y think god took tha tmuch tiem and detail to make billions of diffrent of animals that all just had 1 tiny diffrence than its predescessor, and then went "hey man, i keep slowly adding nubs to these fish's backs, why not just give them toes, heck lets give them whole dang feet!"

And you miss my whole point that taller people and shorter people are still human beings. They are not different enough from their parents to not be called human beings! But the way evolutionists claim humans evolved is that the first offspring of apes that supposedly evolved into a human being was called a "homonid". At least that's what one poster on this forum claimed. But maybe that isn't true either . So which is it? Why are humans not called apes today? Why are they called humans? Are you now claiming that humans have always bred humans? If so, then the premise that we evolved from apes or primates is faulty. So again, which is it?

And if humans always bred humans, then why do evolutionists draw picture of pre-historic men with hair all over their bodies? :o There's no way for archeologists to know whether humans had hair all over their bodies unless they surmised that humans came from apes. So again, which is it? Do they believe humans came from apes or primates or that humans came from humans? Or are they so confused that they keep changing their stories?

 

[Quath]

How many changes until you call something, "not a human"?

I read about a salamander that doesn't travel far. They can mate with any salamander within 10 miles (or some distance). But go further and they can not mate because their biology is too different. You can even form a ring such that

Salamander A can mate with Salamander B.
B with C
C with D
D with E
and E with A.

However, Salamander A can not mate with Salamander D.

So to some people if the animals can not mate due to biological differences, they would call it a different species. So A and D would be different species. However, they are just a little different from each other.

Nature does not clearly divide things up into species as we humans do with our categories. Everything in nature is just some small difference than what came before it.

Quath

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

You know what she is going to say to that?

But they are still salamnaders!

You know it will happen. First she is talking about species, and as soon as you show her that there is a seemless transition from one species to another (esepcially if you include extinct species), she will move the goal posts to include larger groups, and demand that you show dolphin being born from a wolf!

 

[ThinkerMan]

And you miss my whole point that taller people and shorter people are still human beings. They are not different enough from their parents to not be called human beings! But the way evolutionists claim humans evolved is that the first offspring of apes that supposedly evolved into a human being was called a "homonid". At least that's what one poster on this forum claimed. But maybe that isn't true either . So which is it? Why are humans not called apes today? Why are they called humans? Are you now claiming that humans have always bred humans? If so, then the premise that we evolved from apes or primates is faulty. So again, which is it?

And if humans always bred humans, then why do evolutionists draw picture of pre-historic men with hair all over their bodies? There's no way for archeologists to know whether humans had hair all over their bodies unless they surmised that humans came from apes. So again, which is it? Do they believe humans came from apes or primates or that humans came from humans? Or are they so confused that they keep changing their stories?

Heidi, if you won't take our word for it, perhaps you will listen to some other creationists.

While I certainly don't agree with everything they say in the article, they make some excellent points about how to correctly articulate arguments on an "apples to apples" basis and avoid strawman discussions.

This is from Answers In Genesis in an article titled "Arguments we think Creationists should NOT use"...

‘If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?’ In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this ‘pussyfooting’, as he called it. He said, ‘In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.’

However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionistsâ€â€creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying ‘If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?’

So what’s the difference between the creationist explanation of people groups (‘races’) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of ‘letters’ of new information.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

 

[Ajax 777]

...

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I have only this to say: reality is merely the illusion of the world in which we live.

God's Truth is MUCH more real, and far harder to perceive, let alone see. It's the darkness at work in the world at present that covers it up, and keeps it hidden from view.

This is the present darkness against which we wage the battle of Godly principalities, and wickedness in high places.

cute

 

[Ajax 777]

...

 

[Heidi]

Human beings can only understand what they understand & nothing more. We Christians were once unbelievers too. So we know what life with the Holy Spirit & without it is like. Therefore, we are in a position to see which one is better. But those who've never received the Holy Spirit are stuck where we used to be. Since we've experienced which one is better, that's why we pass along the message of salvation. Nothing beats it! :angel: But until unbelievers have experienced life with the Holy Spirit, they will never know what they're missing.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Why is that?

Quite frankly, it didn't make any sense.

You'd rather it be some burdensome litany of jargon and textbook-characterized literary instruction?

I guess I just like evidence before making a judgement. At least thats what I think your getting at.

You'd rather fill your mind with doctrine and practice empty rhetorical dogma than fill your heart with even a drop of God's strange and mysterious ways revealing themselves as a truer kind of spiritual fulfillment?

Quite the opposite actually. That's why i am a believer in God, but not a big fan of organized religion. At least thats what I think you are getting at.

You say "cute", but I'd say yours is just plain UGLY.

My what is ugly exactly?

You care not nor know not about what it is that pleases God.... And why should you? You have your systematic belief and factual certainty that it is God's Way to burden men with Laws and Commandments as the way to live right, rather than letting God write upon your heart the things that make living right with God a simple choice and the good things it fills you up with from there.

I am sorry, but I am quite sure that you have no idea exaclty WHAT I believe in. One thing that I do believe in is to not shove my beliefs down other people's throats or condem them if they disagree with me.

Or maybe you just wanted to be a smartass.

Since I don't really understand what your alternative to smartass was, I guess I will have to say - maybe I was being a bit of a smartass.

Either way, I wish you people wouldn't.

WHat kind of people am I exactly, and what precisely is it you don't want us to do?

Frankly, your attitude sucks.

I take that to mean you don't agree with me. Frankly, I have no idea where you are comming from.
Seriously, its just not making alot of sense. Maybe I am stupid.
You do seem to equate science and evolution with athiesm. I think.