[_ Old Earth _] What those who endorse evolution igore

[Heidi]

They ignore:

1) That animals can't breed humans any more than humans breed animals
2) The pictures that Johnmuise showed of the sketches that evolutionary scientists draw from one tooth or bone fragment. :
3) Why humans don't breed zebras
4) That no one in history can document their ape ancestors
5) The impossible odds of thousands of animals being given the exact same genes
6) The affects that a flood can have on disfiguring skulls and bones
7) All other possibilities for the shape and looks of skulls and bones except one; that apes turned into humans.
8) The inaccuracies of their dating methods which is why they're constantly trying to improve them
9) The fact that one has to know how much radiation is in each generation in order for carbon dating to be accurate
10) That there's no way to prove that a species was covered in hair without the hair fibers to prove it.
11) That there's no way to prove what color eyes these beasts had unless someone wrote an account of them.
12) That there's no way to prove what kind of skin these creatures or even dinosaurs had without samples of it
13) That there's no way to prove what these creatures wore without their clothing
14) That there's no way to calculate how many of these creatures walked the earth from only a few skulls and bones
15) And last but not least, the missing link which has always been missing and always will be. So there's no way to know what this fictitious beast bred because they don't know what he looked like, who he was, or where he lived.

So most of the theory of evolution has come from zero evidence but instead, drawings from the imaginations of men. These "scientists" have drawn sketches of fully grown ape men without knowing what kind of skin they had, eye color, what they wore, complete with Tarzan outfits out of their imaginations. That's called artwork, not science. Science looks at all sides of an issue and takes into consideration all options before making judgments. Not evolutionary scientists. Their beliefs didn't come from evidence. They looked for evidence to prove their beliefs. So they throw out any other scenario except the one they want. That's called bias, not science. And once again, the public can so easily be duped because they see scientists as gods. :crazyeyes:

That's an awful lot to ignore. Yet legends die hard even though they have nothing whatsoever to do with reality. People will hang onto them long after they've been proven to be nothing more than legends. But true scientists cannot ignore the above which is why more and more scientists are admitting that evolution is a myth. Only those who blind their eyes to the contradictions in their theory will stubbornly cling on to one of the most ridiculous and blatant lies of the last 2 centuries.

 

[jwu]

nwrt

 

[John]

I have never read or been told a reasonaible answear to the OP's points.

 

[John]

Okay for my own knowladge gaining pleasure, lets go over these claims on at a time.

1) That animals can't breed humans any more than humans breed animals
2) The pictures that Johnmuise showed of the sketches that evolutionary scientists draw from one tooth or bone fragment.
3) Why humans don't breed zebras
4) That no one in history can document their ape ancestors
5) The impossible odds of thousands of animals being given the exact same genes
6) The affects that a flood can have on disfiguring skulls and bones
7) All other possibilities for the shape and looks of skulls and bones except one; that apes turned into humans.
8) The inaccuracies of their dating methods which is why they're constantly trying to improve them
9) The fact that one has to know how much radiation is in each generation in order for carbon dating to be accurate
10) That there's no way to prove that a species was covered in hair without the hair fibers to prove it.
11) That there's no way to prove what color eyes these beasts had unless someone wrote an account of them.
12) That there's no way to prove what kind of skin these creatures or even dinosaurs had without samples of it
13) That there's no way to prove what these creatures wore without their clothing
14) That there's no way to calculate how many of these creatures walked the earth from only a few skulls and bones
15) And last but not least, the missing link which has always been missing and always will be. So there's no way to know what this fictitious beast bred because they don't know what he looked like, who he was, or where he lived.


1) That animals can't breed humans any more than humans breed animals

Whats wrong with this statment...is it false?

 

[jwu]

I'm not going to play "Gish Gallop" with Heidi, as i know that she'll ignore any answers and keep posting the same stuff over and over. She has been doing that for years now, and is utterly resistant to reason.

E.g. in a thread on CARM she argued that the planet mars according to science should give off light by nuclear fusion, like a star. She resisted any attempt to teach her the elementary school level science that there is a difference between planets and stars.

See for yourself (Heidi=Carico):
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.or ... hp?t=37280

Anyway:

1) That animals can't breed humans any more than humans breed animals

Whats wrong with this statment...is it false?

Biologically speaking humans are a species animals. Exceptionelly intelligent animals, but we do fit every criterion that defines the term.
What she really is argueing against is that humans don't breed non-humans and vice versa. But of course the ToE does not claim any such thing; the descendants always belong to the same species as their parents. Hence using this as an objection against the ToE is a straw man.

 

[John]

Until something happens and after time changes into a new species ?

 

[jwu]

Basically yes.

The term species is defined as a group of individuals which can procreate with each other and have fertile offspring.
Say, we have a population G0. It accumulates mutations with each passing generations, so the successor generation G1 of this population has some mutations, G2 has even more, G3 more again and so on. Eventually, at G5000 or so, it has accumulated so many mutations than members of G5000 couldn't have fertile offspring with members of G1 anymore. They would be considered a different species then - yet at no time did an individual give birth to a member of a different species; each could successfully mate with members of its predecessor or successor generation.

 

[John]

Basically yes.

The term species is defined as a group of individuals which can procreate with each other and have fertile offspring.
Say, we have a population G0. It accumulates mutations with each passing generations, so the successor generation G1 of this population has some mutations, G2 has even more, G3 more again and so on. Eventually, at G5000 or so, it has accumulated so many mutations than members of G5000 couldn't have fertile offspring with members of G1 anymore. They would be considered a different species then - yet at no time did an individual give birth to a member of a different species; each could successfully mate with members of its predecessor or successor generation.

Thats what Hedi is saying, in a strawman form, that has never been observed and the evidance is unrelaible and weak. but yo answeard it so on to the next question.

1) That animals can't breed humans any more than humans breed animals
2) The pictures that Johnmuise showed of the sketches that evolutionary scientists draw from one tooth or bone fragment.
3) Why humans don't breed zebras
4) That no one in history can document their ape ancestors
5) The impossible odds of thousands of animals being given the exact same genes
6) The affects that a flood can have on disfiguring skulls and bones
7) All other possibilities for the shape and looks of skulls and bones except one; that apes turned into humans.
8) The inaccuracies of their dating methods which is why they're constantly trying to improve them
9) The fact that one has to know how much radiation is in each generation in order for carbon dating to be accurate
10) That there's no way to prove that a species was covered in hair without the hair fibers to prove it.
11) That there's no way to prove what color eyes these beasts had unless someone wrote an account of them.
12) That there's no way to prove what kind of skin these creatures or even dinosaurs had without samples of it
13) That there's no way to prove what these creatures wore without their clothing
14) That there's no way to calculate how many of these creatures walked the earth from only a few skulls and bones
15) And last but not least, the missing link which has always been missing and always will be. So there's no way to know what this fictitious beast bred because they don't know what he looked like, who he was, or where he lived.

The pictures that Johnmuise showed of the sketches that evolutionary scientists draw from one tooth or bone fragment.

And this ?

 

[jwu]

Thats what Hedi is saying, in a strawman form, that has never been observed and the evidance is unrelaible and weak. but yo answeard it so on to the next question.

Actually this process, accumulation of genetic differences which eventually proclude procreation, has been observed many times. I can get you a list of directly observed instances of 50+ speciation events.

The pictures that Johnmuise showed of the sketches that evolutionary scientists draw from one tooth or bone fragment.

And this ?[/quote]
Which sketches are you referring to? As far as i know they usually were made by artists or illustrators for laymen magazines, not by scientists and published in peer reviewed papers.

Do you have an example of a highly speculative sketch which isn't marked as pure speculation, which was accepted in the scientific literature?

 

[John]

Naw, that was just a googled image, but the data contained was accurate.

 

[Jayls5]

The only thing I read was the name of the original poster, and I can confidently say, "Nobody cares!"

 

[jwu]

Naw, that was just a googled image, but the data contained was accurate.

Without an actual sketch there is no case...

 

[John]

Naw, that was just a googled image, but the data contained was accurate.

Without an actual sketch there is no case...

but how can there be a sketch? i find it really annoying how peoepl can find a bone in the dirt and then go on to tell us, what color the animal was, fur/scales/hair etc, age, family groups, and the worst one.. how it evolved.

all sketches are based on an artists interpretation.

1) That animals can't breed humans any more than humans breed animals
2) The pictures that Johnmuise showed of the sketches that evolutionary scientists draw from one tooth or bone fragment.
3) Why humans don't breed zebras
4) That no one in history can document their ape ancestors
5) The impossible odds of thousands of animals being given the exact same genes
6) The affects that a flood can have on disfiguring skulls and bones
7) All other possibilities for the shape and looks of skulls and bones except one; that apes turned into humans.
8) The inaccuracies of their dating methods which is why they're constantly trying to improve them
9) The fact that one has to know how much radiation is in each generation in order for carbon dating to be accurate
10) That there's no way to prove that a species was covered in hair without the hair fibers to prove it.
11) That there's no way to prove what color eyes these beasts had unless someone wrote an account of them.
12) That there's no way to prove what kind of skin these creatures or even dinosaurs had without samples of it
13) That there's no way to prove what these creatures wore without their clothing
14) That there's no way to calculate how many of these creatures walked the earth from only a few skulls and bones
15) And last but not least, the missing link which has always been missing and always will be. So there's no way to know what this fictitious beast bred because they don't know what he looked like, who he was, or where he lived.

Why humans don't breed zebras

i already know the answear to this one.. moving on..

That no one in history can document their ape ancestors

i know the answear to this on moving on..

The impossible odds of thousands of animals being given the exact same genes

odds dont count appertly in evolution. moving on..

The affects that a flood can have on disfiguring skulls and bones

ah here is one.

 

[jwu]

Naw, that was just a googled image, but the data contained was accurate.

Without an actual sketch there is no case...

but how can there be a sketch? i find it really annoying how peoepl can find a bone in the dirt and then go on to tell us, what color the animal was, fur/scales/hair etc, age, family groups, and the worst one.. how it evolved.

Wasn't it the point that such sketches supposedly get made without sufficient evidence and are supposedly passed along as a scientific conclusion? If you say that there are no such sketches, then you demolish that point yourself. Regarding the other things, well, i'll need a specific case to evaluate.

[quote:cfae4] The impossible odds of thousands of animals being given the exact same genes

odds dont count appertly in evolution. moving on..
[/quote:cfae4]Evolution doesn't claim that even as many as two individuals got the exact same mutations. That supposed claim of the ToE exists only in Heidi's imagination.

[quote:cfae4]The affects that a flood can have on disfiguring skulls and bones

ah here is one.[/quote:cfae4]
Why would a cataclysmis event disfigure a whole bunch of bones of multiple specimen in the same way? How would it disfigure them at all in first instance? Bones tend to break, not to bend...

Why would such a process leave them pretty much intact and nicely assembled as a skeleton in one location, instead of crushing them and scattering them over hundreds of square miles?

 

[Heidi]

Okay for my own knowladge gaining pleasure, lets go over these claims on at a time.

1) That animals can't breed humans any more than humans breed animals
2) The pictures that Johnmuise showed of the sketches that evolutionary scientists draw from one tooth or bone fragment.
3) Why humans don't breed zebras
4) That no one in history can document their ape ancestors
5) The impossible odds of thousands of animals being given the exact same genes
6) The affects that a flood can have on disfiguring skulls and bones
7) All other possibilities for the shape and looks of skulls and bones except one; that apes turned into humans.
8) The inaccuracies of their dating methods which is why they're constantly trying to improve them
9) The fact that one has to know how much radiation is in each generation in order for carbon dating to be accurate
10) That there's no way to prove that a species was covered in hair without the hair fibers to prove it.
11) That there's no way to prove what color eyes these beasts had unless someone wrote an account of them.
12) That there's no way to prove what kind of skin these creatures or even dinosaurs had without samples of it
13) That there's no way to prove what these creatures wore without their clothing
14) That there's no way to calculate how many of these creatures walked the earth from only a few skulls and bones
15) And last but not least, the missing link which has always been missing and always will be. So there's no way to know what this fictitious beast bred because they don't know what he looked like, who he was, or where he lived.


1) That animals can't breed humans any more than humans breed animals

Whats wrong with this statment...is it false?

Again, once evolutionists explain why humans can't breed zebras as descendants they will know why apes can't breed human descendants. And that's why they never answer that question because it negates their whole theory. Again, the truth is always simple. it's lies that are complex convoluted and contradictory. ;-)

 

[jwu]

A human giving birth to a zebra would disprove the ToE. Your argument is the very definition of a straw man...

 

[Heidi]

A human giving birth to a zebra would disprove the ToE. Your argument is the very definition of a straw man...

Prove it by answering the question. Otherwise your evasion is the same as pleading the 5th. ;-) So far, the only thing you've proven is that you ignore the things in my OP, proving my OP true. ;-)

 

[jwu]

Humans can't breed zebras because they are different species. Question answered?

So far, the only thing you've proven is that you ignore the things in my OP, proving my OP true.

Non sequitur.

 

[Heidi]

Humans can't breed zebras because they are different species. Question answered?

So far, the only thing you've proven is that you ignore the things in my OP, proving my OP true.

Non sequitur.

That's one true answer. Here is the definition of a species; "A classification of living organisms with similar characteristics, capable of interbreeding and exchanging genes." So where has it been proven that apes or any animal can interbreed with humans and exchange genes? :o It hasn't because humans are a different species than animals. And since in that definition, species have to be capable of interbreeding with each other, then there are clearly species who are incapable of interbreedin with other species or there would only be one species of living things. But scientists admit there are many. So they defeat their own theory. But even if you call a human an ape, then you are actually saying that humans have always given birth only to humans as creationists have always known. ;-) So every way you look at it, you defeat your own theory. End of story. ;-)

 

[jwu]

Apparently you still don't grasp that the definition of a species shifts with the frame of reference.