[_ Old Earth _] Survival of the Fittest: YECreationist misinterpretation

[Quid]

Sorry, but the definition of an ape comes from its capacity to produce offspring together, not what names men call them.

I want the dictionary that says that, right there. Not the definition of species. The definition of ape. You seem to think that ape doesn't include more than one species. However, it most certainly does. Humans included.

 

[Loren Michael]

I didn't make up a new difinition. I got this one from the dictionary.

What dictionary?

Webster's/url] and [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ape]Dictionary.com say otherwise.

Please, do show what dictionary you got that definition from.

Nor have you refuted the fact that DNA mutates, and even creates new information that could very well create new species over millions of years. Not in one birth, but over time. Which leaves me to assume that you can't disprove evolution. You may have the start of mankind nailed down, but not the journey.

The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, American edition, defines species as; "A category in the system of classification of living organsims capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding."

And as any sane person can see, humans and animals aren't capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. But I'm sorry that there are so many people who need someone else to point that out to them. Again, any child knows that humans don't come from dogs, birds, fish, lions, or apes. It is only adults who can be blind to reality and teach their children things that contradict reality.

hm. i feel like this is an exercise in futility, as you've carefully misinterpreted a great deal of what has already been said , but consider the case of the relationship of the herring gull and the black-beaked gull. in britain, they are quite obviously very different species of birds, incapable of interbreeding. however, if you follow the herring gulls westward around the north the north pole to america, the "herring gulls" gradually become less and less like herring gulls and more and more like black-beaked gulls.

the curious fact here, and the point, is taht each of these different versions of the gulls can interbreed with one another, as long as they are sufficiently close genetically to their neighbor.

your flippant misinterpretation of dogs and fish and the like birthing humans while obviously intentional does little to help a debate. you're talking at people rather than persading people. you're being less than conducive to the discussion, and by forcing everyone to correct what you say, you're provoking negative reactions from people.

it's one thing to disagree with people, it's another to be deliberately obtuse, i guess is what i'm trying to say. 8-)

EDIT: wow, this post neatly falls under the subject heading for this thead. PHENOMINAL!

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Social Darwinists:you know what they cam up with?
communisim and all that stuff

You're kidding me, next you'll be telling me Richard Nixon invented Universal Health Care and George Bush is an antiwar hippie. Social Darwinists were conservatives who were using Darwin's work to fallaciously support their own racist viewpoint, which Darwin wholeheartedly disagreed with, both their using of his ideas and their viewpoint.
[quote:26566]


acually no,take H.G.Well for instance,

in Co-op our teach asked us to bring information on him,

some of the things we found were somwhat disturbing,

he hated jews and though of them as greedy money grubbers
he and hitler shared that idea,

he was a socilist(not hard to figure out)

he wanted a one world government

oh and I should tell you

Evolution is based on socilisim,wich is based on facisim which is communisim.

[/quote:26566]
....Da! Mo...Fa? Wha?!

Wells was a socialist and was antisemetic, but that is not in any way connected to evolution or you know, the topic. Evolution is NOT based on socialism, it's based on Malthusian population statistics and Darwin's own views on animal diversity. Socialism and Communism are completely and utterly separate from Facism and absolutely beside the point.

The topic is Social Darwinism. Look it up and use facts.

 

[Vanaka]

Social Darwinists:you know what they cam up with?
communisim and all that stuff

You're kidding me, next you'll be telling me Richard Nixon invented Universal Health Care and George Bush is an antiwar hippie. Social Darwinists were conservatives who were using Darwin's work to fallaciously support their own racist viewpoint, which Darwin wholeheartedly disagreed with, both their using of his ideas and their viewpoint.
[quote:e84ca]


acually no,take H.G.Well for instance,

in Co-op our teach asked us to bring information on him,

some of the things we found were somwhat disturbing,

he hated jews and though of them as greedy money grubbers
he and hitler shared that idea,

he was a socilist(not hard to figure out)

he wanted a one world government

oh and I should tell you

Evolution is based on socilisim,wich is based on facisim which is communisim.

....Da! Mo...Fa? Wha?!

Wells was a socialist and was antisemetic, but that is not in any way connected to evolution or you know, the topic. Evolution is NOT based on socialism, it's based on Malthusian population statistics and Darwin's own views on animal diversity. Socialism and Communism are completely and utterly separate from Facism and absolutely beside the point.

The topic is Social Darwinism. Look it up and use facts.

[/quote:e84ca]

lol,you dont even know what facisim is I bet,I happen to because I know econmics and one of the things I learned was about these things,
just take a look at the democrat party,
their new agey,
tbeir werid,
their pretty communistic though they won't admit it
because of what happend with hitler and stuff,
and did I mention their Evolutionists?

 

[Loren Michael]

lol,you dont even know what facisim is I bet,I happen to because I know econmics and one of the things I learned was about these things,
just take a look at the democrat party,
their new agey,
tbeir werid,
their pretty communistic though they won't admit it
because of what happend with hitler and stuff,
and did I mention their Evolutionists?

don't take this the wrong way, but based on your post i'm going to make the educated guess that your knowledge of economics consists of a class that you slept through. same for political science.

now, that sort of tactic works well in middle school playground, when you can make up whatever fake credentials you want (i'm a ninja!!), when you make such obviously false statements on the web, it's easy for me to say "oops, google, wikipedia, and dictionary.com all say that you're wrong."

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

It's amazing how bullheaded you are when you're so incredibly wrong.
Fascism-Authoritarian Government
Socialism-The collective ownership of means of production, either by government or by union.
Difference, obvious.

Fascism is not an economic system.

 

[Heidi]

I didn't make up a new difinition. I got this one from the dictionary.

What dictionary?

Webster's/url] and [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ape]Dictionary.com say otherwise.

Please, do show what dictionary you got that definition from.

Nor have you refuted the fact that DNA mutates, and even creates new information that could very well create new species over millions of years. Not in one birth, but over time. Which leaves me to assume that you can't disprove evolution. You may have the start of mankind nailed down, but not the journey.

The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, American edition, defines species as; "A category in the system of classification of living organsims capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding."

And as any sane person can see, humans and animals aren't capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. But I'm sorry that there are so many people who need someone else to point that out to them. Again, any child knows that humans don't come from dogs, birds, fish, lions, or apes. It is only adults who can be blind to reality and teach their children things that contradict reality.

hm. i feel like this is an exercise in futility, as you've carefully misinterpreted a great deal of what has already been said , but consider the case of the relationship of the herring gull and the black-beaked gull. in britain, they are quite obviously very different species of birds, incapable of interbreeding. however, if you follow the herring gulls westward around the north the north pole to america, the "herring gulls" gradually become less and less like herring gulls and more and more like black-beaked gulls.

the curious fact here, and the point, is taht each of these different versions of the gulls can interbreed with one another, as long as they are sufficiently close genetically to their neighbor.

your flippant misinterpretation of dogs and fish and the like birthing humans while obviously intentional does little to help a debate. you're talking at people rather than persading people. you're being less than conducive to the discussion, and by forcing everyone to correct what you say, you're provoking negative reactions from people.

it's one thing to disagree with people, it's another to be deliberately obtuse, i guess is what i'm trying to say. 8-)

EDIT: wow, this post neatly falls under the subject heading for this thead. PHENOMINAL!

But what you miss entirely is that they are still birds. Humans breed a variety of humans, apes breed a variety of apes, birds breed a variety of birds. Birds do not breed apes, lions do not breed birds, and apes do not breed humans. Again you need to get out of your imagination and enter the real world so you can see how basic biology works.

So yes, it is an exercise in futility because you will not convince me that animals breed human beings. No one's ever witnessed it and no one ever will. There is a natural sperm barrier in animals of each species that keeps them from breeding outside of it. This is a no-brainer that people who are too busy analyzing the trees and miss the forest cannot comprehend. It's embarrassing that it's even in contention! All you have to do is go to a zoo to see what apes breed. And if some people want to believe in science fiction, they are free to do so. But that can never change the fact that humans breed humans and apes breed apes Sorry.

 

[Vanaka]

It's amazing how bullheaded you are when you're so incredibly wrong.
Fascism-Authoritarian Government
Socialism-The collective ownership of means of production, either by government or by union.
Difference, obvious.

Fascism is not an economic system.

it's amazing how bullheaded you are when you so incredibly didnt spell it right :-D

don't take this the wrong way, but based on your post i'm going to make the educated guess that your knowledge of economics consists of a class that you slept through. same for political science.

now, that sort of tactic works well in middle school playground, when you can make up whatever fake credentials you want (i'm a ninja!!), when you make such obviously false statements on the web, it's easy for me to say "oops, google, wikipedia, and dictionary.com all say that you're wrong."

nah,I just didnt learn what I call "absurd economics"
which teaches junk like "for every dollar the government makes there is gold for it in the tresury" which is sooo absurd because then the government would be spending the money on its worth in gold and not what they want,yet,they still spend money on what they want.....

if you want to learn worthwhile econmics then check out "whatever happend to penny candy" then work your way up from there.

anyhow

just listen one of the domocrats whiney things aginst Gorege.W.Bush(who is a conservative BTW),

google, wikipedia, and dictionary.com

honestly I doubt those would have any relavent information because
democrats can't seem decide what they belive,ever listened to Rush limbaugh?

 

[Quid]

So what you're saying is you're making things up because no one except lunatics agree with you.

 

[Heidi]

So what you're saying is you're making things up because no one except lunatics agree with you.

Sorry, but only lunatics believe that animals can breed human beings. But the biblical account supports reality completely. Humans breed humans, apes breed apes, and man rules over the animals. Only the blind cannot see that. 8-)

 

[Loren Michael]

So what you're saying is you're making things up because no one except lunatics agree with you.

Sorry, but only lunatics believe that animals can breed human beings. But the biblical account supports reality completely. Humans breed humans, apes breed apes, and man rules over the animals. Only the blind cannot see that. 8-)

heidi, if you don't understand how evolution works, just ask.

 

[Heidi]

So what you're saying is you're making things up because no one except lunatics agree with you.

Sorry, but only lunatics believe that animals can breed human beings. But the biblical account supports reality completely. Humans breed humans, apes breed apes, and man rules over the animals. Only the blind cannot see that. 8-)

heidi, if you don't understand how evolution works, just ask.

Oh unfortunately, I bought the theory for over 30 years. It wasn't until I realized that fallible human beings created it that I began to see how nonsensical and impossible it is. What evolutionists don't understand is that their premise is faulty. So all the voluminous work they have done is meaningless if the premise is faulty. And since it has never been witnessed or proven anywhere that an ape can produce a human being, then I will go with the evidence over the imagination any day.

 

[Barbarian]

So tell us what you think the theory of evolution says, Heidi.

This should be different.

My guess is she won't do it, because she doesn't have a clue about what it is.

 

[Heidi]

So tell us what you think the theory of evolution says, Heidi.

This should be different.

My guess is she won't do it, because she doesn't have a clue about what it is.

There are many aspects of the theory of evolution that would fill tomes. But the basic principles are that men evolved from lower primates. Some evolutionists hold that all living things came from one cell while others hold that only certain species "evolved" (which means produced offspring because that's how animals multiply) into other species. Evolutionists claim that weaker traits die out while stronger traits remain and produce even stronger traits. This has been proven false because animals still breed defective offspring.

The theory completely overlooks the fact that the genes of animals cannot be passed onto humans, nor can they create humans. So man could not have come from an animal. But scientists already know that so they use the word; "evolve" to try to avoid the fact that offspring come from sexual relations between their parents. And since again, there is a natural sperm barrier between different species, "evolution" is not possible.

In addition, since apes are still around today, than the fittest do not outlive their "weaker" ancestors.

Evolutionists also claim that man came from an ancestor common to both man and ape. This would make this creature half-man, and half-beast which is only possible in fairy tales. And evolutionists claim the bible is fictional! Yet the biblical account of creation supports reality perfectly. Each species breeds its own kind and humans rule over the animals. That is as true today as it has been ever since the beginning of recorded history.

So the theory of evolution not only contradicts reality, but the reproductive process as well because of course, apes did not reproduce themselves if they had offspring who eventually turned into human beings.

So it's a waste of time to create newer and more voluminous possibilities of evolution, i.e. microevolution, macroevolution when the original premise is impossible.

Therefore, the theory of evolution is ridiculous to the point of ludicrous and an embarrassment to mankind as well.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

So tell us what you think the theory of evolution says, Heidi.

This should be different.

My guess is she won't do it, because she doesn't have a clue about what it is.

There are many aspects of the theory of evolution that would fill tomes. But the basic principles are that men evolved from lower primates. Some evolutionists hold that all living things came from one cell while others hold that only certain species "evolved" (which means produced offspring because that's how animals multiply) into other species. Evolutionists claim that weaker traits die out while stronger traits remain and produce even stronger traits. This has been proven false because animals still breed defective offspring.

The theory completely overlooks the fact that the genes of animals cannot be passed onto humans, nor can they create humans. So man could not have come from an animal. But scientists already know that so they use the word; "evolve" to try to avoid the fact that offspring come from sexual relations between their parents. And since again, there is a natural sperm barrier between different species, "evolution" is not possible.

In addition, since apes are still around today, than the fittest do not outlive their "weaker" ancestors.

Evolutionists also claim that man came from an ancestor common to both man and ape. This would make this creature half-man, and half-beast which is only possible in fairy tales. And evolutionists claim the bible is fictional! Yet the biblical account of creation supports reality perfectly. Each species breeds its own kind and humans rule over the animals. That is as true today as it has been ever since the beginning of recorded history.

So the theory of evolution not only contradicts reality, but the reproductive process as well because of course, apes did not reproduce themselves if they had offspring who eventually turned into human beings.

So it's a waste of time to create newer and more voluminous possibilities of evolution, i.e. microevolution, macroevolution when the original premise is impossible.

Therefore, the theory of evolution is ridiculous to the point of ludicrous and an embarrassment to mankind as well.

You are in fact wrong. Those are not the basic premises of the ToE. Go back and try again.

You're denying things that people have seen occur before their eyes, you deny microevolution occurs. This is symptomatic of not knowing jack about a subject. You don't know what the ToE is and you can't possibly seek to debate the topic.

 

[Heidi]

The plain truth is that if I disagree with the theory of evolution, you'll simply say I never understood it in the first place. But it is in fact you, who are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole because you don't understand why animals cannot breed humans. So I suggest you observe how animals produce offspring and you will see that they reproduce themselves instead of other species. Until you understand that, then you'll always be under the assumption that animals produce human offspring. Therefore, since you believe they can, then you cannot have a rational conversation about this. Sorry.

 

[Quid]

But the biblical account supports reality completely. Humans breed humans, apes breed apes, and man rules over the animals. Only the blind cannot see that. 8-)

Holy shit.

You can pull out a guy's rib and make a woman?

 

[Loren Michael]

But the biblical account supports reality completely. Humans breed humans, apes breed apes, and man rules over the animals. Only the blind cannot see that. 8-)

Holy I love Jesus a lot.

You can pull out a guy's rib and make a woman?

it's too late. god already did it. the proof is in the fact that men have one less rib than women do to this very day. :o

 

[Rick W]

I believe man and woman have the same amount of ribs.
If for some reason I lost a pair of ribs, even while young, when I have children they too will still have the same amount of ribs I was born with. Just because God took something from Adam's body doesn't mean his offspring won't have the same parts he started with.

 

[Barbarian]

Heidi, why don't you go look up what evolutionary theory is about? You're making yourself an easy target, and that's not good for the discussion generally.

Wouldn't you be a more effective critic of evolution if you knew what it was?

Of course you would. Go find out.