...In 20 Questions. Read up, Get Educated. http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions.html
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[_ Old Earth _] The Collapse Of The Theory Of Evolution...
- Thread starter John
- Start date
D
Deep Thought
Guest
I've just read the opening paragraphs and the 1st question. Amazing. I think in just a few hundred words, the author/s have many more lies, distortions and pure fallacy than any other document I've ever seen. That's something they should be very proud of. 
:
:
D
Deep Thought
Guest
For example, the second sentance says:
Evolution says no such thing and who would be crazy enough to claim that humans aren't a species of animal.
I could go on and on through the entire article, but I'd probably be here for the next month refuting all the silly claims.
[/quote]
Evolution says no such thing and who would be crazy enough to claim that humans aren't a species of animal.
I could go on and on through the entire article, but I'd probably be here for the next month refuting all the silly claims.
Barbarian
Member
I didn't know you were a Muslim, John. Let's see what your Islamic guy has to show for us...
Bad assumption. A valid scientific theory is a testable hypothesis that makes predictions that have been verified. For example, the predictions of feathered dinosaurs, whales with functional legs, intermediates between reptiles and mammals, and a host of other such predictions have made it a valid theory.
It wouldn't. In fact, if evolutionary theory collapsed, it would bring much of Christian theology into serious doubt. Maybe not your Muslim theology.
Depends on what you want to define as "man." Normally, that would be any species of the genus Homo. In that case, a few millions years. It's a good example of evolution because (for example) we have a very good series of intermediates between archaic H. erectus and modern H. sapiens.
It is the basis for biology. As Theodosius Dobzhanski pointed out, nothing makes sense in biology, except in light of evolution. Of course, Dobzhanski was a devout Christian. And you're a Muslim.
There are no biological human races. This is a common creationist misconception. And it testifies to the wide-ranging behavior of humans, and to a bottleneck a few hundred thousand years ago.
Depends on what you are comparing. Could be as high as 98, and as low as 95. In fact, humans and chimps have a very, very close relationship genetically.
The evidence for this is voluminous, with a long series of transitionals between dinosaurs and reptiles.
It's based on a misconception about what scientists think. Humans and fish (and all other vertebrates) have branchial arches that in fish form gills. Some of them form jaws in fish and in other vertebrates and some form the ears of land animals. No scientist thinks humans have gills at some time. It's just that the genes that form the structures that become gills are present in humans, and are used for other purposes.
Didn't know anyone did. Sounds kinda strawmannish to me.
(two "9"s; this guy is definitely a creationist)
Maybe. How life got here is not part of evolutionary theory.
You got it backwards. The theory of evolution supported the fact that the Earth is four billion years old. Darwin told Lord Kelvin that something was wrong with his estimate of a few million, because that would have not been enough time for evolution. Turns out Darwin was right, as Kelvin later admitted.
Actually, they indicate we evolved from animals with much larger jaws. Later on, scientists found this prediction to be true.
The most ancient creatures have no complex structures. They re simple one-celled organisms.
Denying science has always been an obstacle to progress.
It's a fact. That's how He did it. If you're unhappy with that, take it up with Management.
It's confirmed now. The first known macroevolutionary event, for example, was observed in 1904.
In insects and other arthropods, it can help trace the phylogeny of different classes of arthropods. Would you like to learn about it?
Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.
Evolution is a change in allele frequency of a population over time. So it's a perfect example of evolution.
Evolution is God's creation.
Bad assumption. A valid scientific theory is a testable hypothesis that makes predictions that have been verified. For example, the predictions of feathered dinosaurs, whales with functional legs, intermediates between reptiles and mammals, and a host of other such predictions have made it a valid theory.
It wouldn't. In fact, if evolutionary theory collapsed, it would bring much of Christian theology into serious doubt. Maybe not your Muslim theology.
Depends on what you want to define as "man." Normally, that would be any species of the genus Homo. In that case, a few millions years. It's a good example of evolution because (for example) we have a very good series of intermediates between archaic H. erectus and modern H. sapiens.
It is the basis for biology. As Theodosius Dobzhanski pointed out, nothing makes sense in biology, except in light of evolution. Of course, Dobzhanski was a devout Christian. And you're a Muslim.
There are no biological human races. This is a common creationist misconception. And it testifies to the wide-ranging behavior of humans, and to a bottleneck a few hundred thousand years ago.
Depends on what you are comparing. Could be as high as 98, and as low as 95. In fact, humans and chimps have a very, very close relationship genetically.
The evidence for this is voluminous, with a long series of transitionals between dinosaurs and reptiles.
It's based on a misconception about what scientists think. Humans and fish (and all other vertebrates) have branchial arches that in fish form gills. Some of them form jaws in fish and in other vertebrates and some form the ears of land animals. No scientist thinks humans have gills at some time. It's just that the genes that form the structures that become gills are present in humans, and are used for other purposes.
Didn't know anyone did. Sounds kinda strawmannish to me.
(two "9"s; this guy is definitely a creationist)
Maybe. How life got here is not part of evolutionary theory.
You got it backwards. The theory of evolution supported the fact that the Earth is four billion years old. Darwin told Lord Kelvin that something was wrong with his estimate of a few million, because that would have not been enough time for evolution. Turns out Darwin was right, as Kelvin later admitted.
Actually, they indicate we evolved from animals with much larger jaws. Later on, scientists found this prediction to be true.
The most ancient creatures have no complex structures. They re simple one-celled organisms.
Denying science has always been an obstacle to progress.
It's a fact. That's how He did it. If you're unhappy with that, take it up with Management.
It's confirmed now. The first known macroevolutionary event, for example, was observed in 1904.
In insects and other arthropods, it can help trace the phylogeny of different classes of arthropods. Would you like to learn about it?
Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.
Evolution is a change in allele frequency of a population over time. So it's a perfect example of evolution.
Evolution is God's creation.
D
Deep Thought
Guest
johnmuise said:
What are you smoking? You've shot yourself in the foot as you obviously must have it wrong and now have to start praying to Allah.
D
Deep Thought
Guest
BTW, did you know he's an OEC?
P
Patashu
Guest
Sure is taking an awfully long time for evolutionary theory to collapse. :-?
Sure it - just maybe, get this - it's not collapsing?
Sure it - just maybe, get this - it's not collapsing?
johnmuise said:LOL, even with all the evidence pointing to me being a christian, just because a Muslim guy writes this that makes me Muslim. This is just another example of the never ending imagination that the evolutionists have.
We know you're not a Muslim, but you did post a link to a guy trying to prove the Qu'ran is the word of God and that Muhammad is the last and greatest prophet.
freeway
Member
The Barbarian said:
Not even and I mean EEEEEVVVVVEEEENNNN close,, ya, you try and just group us as a bunch of loonies. but sorry... My first and foremost devotion is to Jesus Christ, my savior.. who saved my sorry butt form hell and eternally damnation.... and yes I think creation is very important... after all I didn't come from a ape..... even though some of my family may look like it..... :-D
freeway
Member
johnmuise said:was your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandpa a monkey?
no but my second cousin could be, she has a mustache :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
D
Deep Thought
Guest
So now our resident Creationists are presented with actual facts refuting those points, they resort to very infantile humour. I guess that really proves they have been backed into a corner.
Barbarian
Member
It's an old habit with creationists:
"Seeking to score a point against Darwin's disciples, the Bishop of Oxford unwisely baited Thomas Henry Huxley by enquiring whether he would prefer to think of himself descended from an ape on his grandfather's or grandmother's side. According to legend he quickly had his comeuppance. Huxley whispered to a neighbour: "The Lord hath delivered him into mine hands". And replying to the provocation he said that he would rather have an ape for an ancestor than a bishop - or words to that effect. It was rumoured that Huxley said he would rather be an ape than a bishop; but Huxley denied ever saying such a thing. What he had said was bruising enough. He was not ashamed of a simian ancestry but "he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used great gifts to obscure the truth."
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/bro ... ture1.html
That wouldn't exactly fit this case, of course...
"Seeking to score a point against Darwin's disciples, the Bishop of Oxford unwisely baited Thomas Henry Huxley by enquiring whether he would prefer to think of himself descended from an ape on his grandfather's or grandmother's side. According to legend he quickly had his comeuppance. Huxley whispered to a neighbour: "The Lord hath delivered him into mine hands". And replying to the provocation he said that he would rather have an ape for an ancestor than a bishop - or words to that effect. It was rumoured that Huxley said he would rather be an ape than a bishop; but Huxley denied ever saying such a thing. What he had said was bruising enough. He was not ashamed of a simian ancestry but "he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used great gifts to obscure the truth."
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/bro ... ture1.html
That wouldn't exactly fit this case, of course...