The Human Body Could not have Evolved

[Alex Summers]

It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches.

But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like? That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'?

There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that.

Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn.

You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all!

Why do you think apes SHOULD become more human like over time?

Theories in science are a big deal, you're using the common use of the term to mean the equivalent of a "hypothesis". The types of things that become law are usually forumlated using mathematical equations.

The common designer/creator argument fails. All we have to do is find creatures that aren't like us humans much at all.

I take no issue with people criticizing aspects of evolution, I just ask that they become familiar with the terms first.

The common creator is stronger because of creatures that are not like humans on the outside but still share amazing amounts of DNA.

On the surface there is not much the same ablut a human and a fruit fly, yet our DNA is more than 60% the same.

That just yells of a creator.

[Bonky]

And there is even less it is 6000 years old.

I would sooner believe in the supernatural before I'd believe the Universe/Earth is 6000 years old. I don't know how one even begins to defend such a position.

[udx]

 

 

Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. 

 

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific term betweens what is a scientific theory and a scientific law.

 

A scientific theory may never "upgrade" to become law..and a scientific law does not "downgrade "to scientific theory. They are two different things that are not interchangeable when you have more or less evidence. Scientific theories could only be over turned or modified. One does not "upgrade" from a theory to a law... and a law isn't "superior" to a theory.

 

A scientific theory is about explaining why a phenomenon happens base on experimental tests.

A scientific law describes an observable phenomenon. 

 

One explains the "why"...the other states what is observed.

 

Trying to discredit a scientific theory by stating "It is just a theory" would only reveal one's ignorance in scientific terms.

[OakWood]

 

It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches.

But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like? That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'?

There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that.

Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn.

You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all!

Why do you think apes SHOULD become more human like over time?

We do not descend from modern apes.

Theories in science are a big deal, you're using the common use of the term to mean the equivalent of a "hypothesis". The types of things that become law are usually forumlated using mathematical equations. A scientific law is not superior to a theory.

The common designer/creator argument fails. All we have to do is find creatures that aren't like us humans much at all.

I take no issue with people criticizing aspects of evolution, I just ask that they become familiar with the terms first.

 

 

 It doesn't alter what I said one bit. There is little proof for evolution, whatever name you give it.

 

As for the common designer argument - well, it doesn't fail.... I'm afraid. All living things consist of cells. There are similarities in all life forms.

Many machines consists of nuts and bolts, but cars are similar to each other and planes are very different to cars. You're really using the same argument to try and destroy an argument but it doesn't work.

Evolutionists use similarities between animals to defend evolution and when I use the same argument to defend a creator, you bring in the cases where there are no similarities - which using your own logic could also be used to argue against evolution as well.

[udx]

 

 

 It doesn't alter what I said one bit. There is little proof for evolution, whatever name you give it.

 

Just correcting misunderstanding of scientific terms, that make people who try to argue over the validity of scientific theory look silly when they do not understand what these terms mean in the first place.

 

Talking about the validity of evolution is another matter...but one should use the correct definition of field specific terms when talking in any field.

[Bonky]

It doesn't alter what I said one bit. There is little proof for evolution, whatever name you give it.

 

As for the common designer argument - well, it doesn't fail.... I'm afraid. All living things consist of cells. There are similarities in all life forms.

Many machines consists of nuts and bolts, but cars are similar to each other and planes are very different to cars. You're really using the same argument to try and destroy an argument but it doesn't work.

Evolutionists use similarities between animals to defend evolution and when I use the same argument to defend a creator, you bring in the cases where there are no similarities - which using your own logic could also be used to argue against evolution as well.

Evolution doesn't even hint that animals should, across the board, be identical. There are very specific genetic sequences that ONLY show up within the primate community. This fits the evolution [common descent] model wonderfully. Creationists often retort with "That just shows a common designer". What that argument does however is call into question "Well what about the animals that aren't like humans at all? Did they have a different designer?"

Otherwise the creationist is left to say "Well yeah the common designer created those creatures too." At that point the argument sinks into total worthlessness. There's no prediciton made, it's just sloppy rhetoric in an attempt to support a story.

[Lighty]

Article explaining why the human body cannot be a product of Evolution

 

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/article/surgeon-says-human-body-did-not-evolve/

Excellent link shiloh. Oh by the way, every time I see your signature it really makes me want to buy a leather jacket haha I should think about getting one soon. 

 

I think more research on this topic needs to be done by creationists and believers but there are some really dedicated individuals already who are at it which is fantastic to see.

 

Our superiority over other creatures could not be understated, we have language, meta cognition, civilization etc. If you pair that with the philosophy of science which tells us that if we could map our brains entirely for example, it could still never explain where subjectivity comes from, different humans have different subjective experiences for reasons which could never possibly be explained, so this type of consciousness had to come from without. Additionally, we can look at the limitation of human beings, the fact that we can't create a single living organism from dead material, like a fly for example. A simple living, breathing fly can never be created from chemicals or dead matter by anybody on earth, even if all scientists joined forces, they could not create a single living functioning animal. This is indeed a sign of God's existence for those who ponder. 

 

Having said all that, science by definition, does not take into account miracles or any Divine being, they are literally joining the dots without trying to use anything that they can't observe and let's face it, we can't expect anybody who refuses to believe in God to accept our explanation. We believe in God and we believe in scripture that is from the ultimate Authority- God Himself. We don't have to get down in the dirt and play their game of ignoring God, if we play that game, it would not make us any better than them. We don't believe in scripture *because of* creationism, that's ridiculous. We believe in religion because it explains what our purpose of life is, it makes perfect sense where we come from, why we are here and what comes after our death. The truthful prophecies made by scripture, the life of the prophets, all of this and much more validate scripture. 

 

Let's never lose focus on the wider and more important issue when we engage with evolutionists. 

[MorningGlory]

Of course the human body didn't evolve; we appreciate and create art, we sing and play music, we laugh and cry, we fall in love, we have spoken and written language, we dance.....we do all of these things because God did them first and we are made in His image.   

[OakWood]

 

It doesn't alter what I said one bit. There is little proof for evolution, whatever name you give it.

 

As for the common designer argument - well, it doesn't fail.... I'm afraid. All living things consist of cells. There are similarities in all life forms.

Many machines consists of nuts and bolts, but cars are similar to each other and planes are very different to cars. You're really using the same argument to try and destroy an argument but it doesn't work.

Evolutionists use similarities between animals to defend evolution and when I use the same argument to defend a creator, you bring in the cases where there are no similarities - which using your own logic could also be used to argue against evolution as well.

Evolution doesn't even hint that animals should, across the board, be identical. There are very specific genetic sequences that ONLY show up within the primate community. This fits the evolution [common descent] model wonderfully. Creationists often retort with "That just shows a common designer". What that argument does however is call into question "Well what about the animals that aren't like humans at all? Did they have a different designer?"

Otherwise the creationist is left to say "Well yeah the common designer created those creatures too." At that point the argument sinks into total worthlessness. There's no prediciton made, it's just sloppy rhetoric in an attempt to support a story.

 

 

Of course it doesn't hint that animals should be identical and I never said that it did. My argument is based on the fact that evolutionists using common traits found in animals to suggest that they evolved. My point is that any common traits can be more easily explained by the presence of an intelligent creator.

Evolution is based on the theory of links, similarities and common ancestors which bizarrely many evolutionists have used to infer that there is no God but any such observations can equally be used to determine that there is a God. Evolution at best is an confirmation of these phenomena rather than an explanation. Evolution is a dead theory. It explains nothing, suggests whatever one wants it to suggest, and in no way satisfactorily substitutes an intelligent creator for any other form of creation.

[Guest Teditis]

I think that the Theory of Irreducible Complexity fairly refutes evolution

in a rational/logical manner. It turns evolution into a farce.