taylor30 Posted February 15, 2012 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 382 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 96 Days Won: 3 Joined: 12/31/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted February 15, 2012 Honestly it astounds me that this is even an issue. Evolution is VERY EASILY diesproven. There has already been proof to show the following. 1. Man and dinosaurs coexisted together. 2. The earth is NOT more than 100,000 years old. 3. Mankind is not more than 10,000 years old. 4. It is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for even a single celled organism to come about by chance even after 100 BILLION years, let alone a trillion celled organism after only 15 billion years. 5. MANY of the so called proofs in your kids science textbooks have been disproven AND even some were done intentionally false. So much so that the creators of such proofs were put on trial for outright fraud. We can know a theory is SERIOUSLY flawed when people actually get in legal trouble for making up so called proofs because real ones don't exist. In addition, there are MANY questions posed to evolutionists that STILL have not been answered and in fact are completely ignored or sidestepped by evolutionists altogether because it is impossible to answer from an evolutionist viewpoint. It makes my stomach turn that billions of our tax dollars go to teach children such a theory that is proven false, yet declared the only legal religion to be state sponsered in schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted February 24, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted February 24, 2012 How is it that if we are evolved from apes, why are there still apes? If I came from my grandparents why do I still have grandparents? We didn't evolve from apes, we share common ancestry. We are primates and we are most closely related to chimpanzees. We don't even share common ancestry. Apes are one animal creation and humans are a totally other creation, non-animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted February 24, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,234 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,485 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Online Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted February 24, 2012 We don't even share common ancestry. Apes are one animal creation and humans are a totally other creation, non-animal. That's not what the genetic evidence tells us. We either share common ancestry or God decided to make it look as if we share common ancestry. I personally don't believe in god but if I was a theist I wouldn't want to worship a deceptive one. Really? How noble of you to stand above your Creator! You will (future tense in an hour, day, week...) not like your choice Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babbler Posted February 24, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 72 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 550 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/08/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2012 The only transitional fossil I know of that was scientifically proven was the Piltdown Man. It transitioned from science to fraud. "It is absurd for the Evolutuinists to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."--G.K. Chesterton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted February 24, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.10 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2012 We either share common ancestry or God decided to make it look as if we share common ancestry. I personally don't believe in god but if I was a theist I wouldn't want to worship a deceptive one. What??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted February 24, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.10 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2012 ← We don't even share common ancestry. Apes are one animal creation and humans are a totally other creation, non-animal. That's not what the genetic evidence tells us. We either share common ancestry or God decided to make it look as if we share common ancestry. I personally don't believe in god but if I was a theist I wouldn't want to worship a deceptive one . Really? How noble of you to stand above your Creator! You will (future tense in an hour, day, week...) not like your choice Love, Steven Hmmmm....trying to 'one up' God is just not a really good idea. Such arrogance shall not go unnoticed. We need to pray for the enlightenment of Stargaze and his compadres, Steven. I don't believe they understand how much they need the Savior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted February 24, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2012 We don't even share common ancestry. Apes are one animal creation and humans are a totally other creation, non-animal. That's not what the genetic evidence tells us. We either share common ancestry or God decided to make it look as if we share common ancestry. I personally don't believe in god but if I was a theist I wouldn't want to worship a deceptive one. Hey Stargaze, Notice that you're simply asserting that the evidence tells us that we share common ancestry without actually giving us the evidence. Once you supply this supposed evidence, it will in all likelihood just be once more a presentation of how evolutionists interpret the data, so according to evolutionary interpretation that's what would make sense, therefore that's what the evidence shows... because of the assumption that evolution did happen. If this is how this is going to go, then once again, it'll just be affirming the consequent based on circular reasoning and once again I'd have to point out that the human genome is 3 billion base pairs, and differs from the nearest supposed relative (chimps) by 5%, according to the most recent studies. That's a differences of 150,000,000 base pairs. If you suppose that we've each had an equal number of changes from our common primate ancestor then that'd be a difference of 75,000,000 base pairs over approximately 6 million years, according to the most conservative evolutionary estimates. That's makes an average of more than one environmentally benefical change to sweep each population every month. At that rate we'd literally be able to observe and track the evolution of mega fauna that reproduce through the slow pace of sexual reproduction which makes it difficult to pass on mutations in a way that we don't even observe among single celled organisms that multiply asexually which allows them to pass on mutations relatively easily in observable billions of generations. I'd have to argue that this is the evidence and it's totally against evolution, but what you're labeling evidence is simply evolutionary interpretations that do nothing more than commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. So if you want to say that it looks like things did evolve, I'd have to say only if you put on you glases that are only capable of filtering out anything except the a priori assumption of evolution before you look. But how have you been? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted February 24, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2012 There is no fallacy at all. How else do you explain that we share several ERV's with chimpanzee's? Why do we have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence as chimps? Did we just happen to end up with the same one but we're not related? Due to the fallacy of affirming the consequent, like I just mentioned. No we didn't just end up with the same one, Stargaze. We're designed, and they're a similar design so they have similar characteristics. That two machines that are designed for similar functions share properties is far from proof that they were not designed or that the one came from the other, without an intelligent process. How do you account for the fact that your supposed evidence is both statistically impossible as well as contrary to what we observe as I pointed out quantitatively? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted February 24, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2012 But the characteristics we're talking about get passed down through reproduction, am I not correct? These characteristics don't just show up out of thin air. Not out of thin air, out of God's intention. He designed us, and He did it well. If certain commonalities were useful in both models based on common function they were given to both and ergo we have shared characteristics. Our similarity to other primates is something that's visually apparent so this supposed problem for creationism is something that's been acknowledged since before evolution was ever dreamed up... and yet it was never considered a problem before, so why would it be now as though it's some new insight? So if I understand you right, no matter how much we would be related to other primates you could just say "well yeah because we have a common designer"? You can't ever be wrong then! Of course that's the case, because you're line of reasoning is fallacious so that legitimate objection will continue to stand. As far as your statistical challenge I'd need more information than what you gave. You supposed that we have an equal number of changes from our ancestor and I would say that's not something we could count on. Stargaze, that actually doesn't matter. It's still the exact same number of changes away whether or not it's equa-distant. If the chimps take the vast majority of mutations by 1000:1, all that would mean is that we'd be watching chimps evolve daily. The only thing that matters is the astounding volume of changes for which our observations cannot account through evolutionary interpretations. Also just because something CAN evolve doesn't mean it will. Ants, crocodiles, sharks, etc have been almost unchanged in millions of years. That objection is an argument from ignorance. I'm saying that based on the evidence we cannot possibly account for the volume of changes we'd need to account for merely the nearest branch of human evolutionary development. You're saying we're free to extrapolate to any extent because we don't know that it didn't happen just because it's not at all like any of the evidence we observe. This is why I disagree that it looks like evolution occurred. When you examine the actual data quantitatively then what you see is that the theory just does not match what we observe, but instead of that the discussion gravitates to subjective interpretations of the evidence that are positioned as the evidence itself, despite actually being circular reasoning that simply affirms the consequent instead of disconfirming any alternatives. That ants, crocodiles, sharks, etc have remained unchanged neither seeks to make sense of the quantitative (i.e. scientific) problems for which evolution cannot account, nor is it at all injurious to my position. All you've added to the table is the acknowledgement that some things really don't seem to change and that fact (which is so complimentary to my position that its brave of you even to bring it up) seems to be the backbone of your defense. So, based on the physical evidence it doesn't look like we have a quantitative license to infer evolution since there’s nothing that would allow such extrapolation (quite the opposite, in fact), but your point is that some things just don’t really seem to evolve? I agree, and will do you one better and point out that the evidence indicates that nothing does. That’s the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted February 25, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.10 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 25, 2012 Not out of thin air, out of God's intention. He designed us, and He did it well. If certain commonalities were useful in both models based on common function they were given to both and ergo we have shared characteristics. I have posted the same statements several times, OES; it's really very easy to see that God knew He didn't have to 'reinvent the wheel' every time He created new species. Obviously He took characteristics from other primates to create man; why not? In fact, DNA is similar in all beings which makes perfect sense. Create a template and use it millions of times, changing this and that when necessary. He gave us a soul though.....no other primates (or any animal) is so endowed. We are as He designed us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts