The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[Sparks]

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

True.   Monkeys are not apes.  And humans are apes.   Genetically, anatomically, and by fossil evidence.   Would you like to learn how we know?

Fossils are not evidence of evolution, they are evidence that something that once lived, died.  You will find that a world-wide flood, and the wrath of God, caused the vast majority of fossils that you find scattered in the fake geologic column.  It might surprise to know that you can make amber and fossils with little effort.  You will find that the famous transitional fossils were made by people, with little effort.

You have been fooled by Satan.

[RdJ]

On 12/23/2023 at 12:22 AM, Starise said:

They are just human. Nothing from anywhere else.

The nephilim were not fully human.

Are you sure?

 

I just read this. That sounds very sons of God raped women to me.

 

https://wibnet.nl/neandertaler/mysterie-achter-verdwijning-van-neanderthalers-opgelost?fbclid=IwAR3tGJuVd2VBpZrO3X3I5tc5G4rl2iThlhYJporFYjdfnvn7b0OKYaNEWcA

 

NEANDERTAL
Mystery behind disappearance of Neanderthals solved
The cause of the mysterious disappearance of prehistoric man approximately 40,000 years ago may be much sexier than previously thought.

PUBLISHED ON 04.11.20
BY NANNA VIUM

About 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals became extinct as a species, and it is still not really clear why.

All kinds of theories have been put forward over the years, such as disease, climate change or a volcanic eruption.

A fairly common explanation is that Neanderthals were defeated and displaced by our own species, Homo sapiens, who entered Europe, where Neanderthals lived, about 50,000 years ago.

But now a new study from researchers at Britain's National History Museum shows that the cause may have been much sexier and less violent than thought. And that it was passionate encounters between the two species that killed our distant cousin.

Sex created hybrids
Previously, genetic analyzes showed that most people outside Africa have about 2 percent Neanderthal DNA.

But no Homo sapiens DNA was found in the 32 Neanderthal genomes analyzed. That aroused the scientists' curiosity.

According to them, it could be that the merger of the two species only went one way - a bit like the 'liger', a hybrid cat species that is the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger.

Liger
The largest living feline today is the liger, a cross between a male lion and a female tiger. Likewise, researchers think that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens could produce hybrid offspring through sex between male Neanderthals and female Homo sapiens.

Fertile males disappeared
No mitochondrial DNA has been found in our genome, which is only passed on through women.

This may mean that only male Neanderthals and female Homo sapiens could have children.

The researchers think that male Neanderthals were introduced into Homo sapiens groups, but Homo sapiens was not introduced to Neanderthals. That may ultimately explain the disappearance of prehistoric man.

'If fertile Neanderthals were regularly included in groups of Homo sapiens in their heyday, they also disappeared from the Neanderthal gene pool. And that development is not sustainable for long in small hunter-gatherer societies,” the researchers write.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

True.   Monkeys are not apes.  And humans are apes.   Genetically, anatomically, and by fossil evidence.   Would you like to learn how we know?

10 hours ago, Sparks said:

Fossils are not evidence of evolution, they are evidence that something that once lived, died. 

Your fellow YE creationists disagree with you:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

YE Creationist Dr.Kurt Wise

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.

YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood

https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

10 hours ago, Sparks said:

You will find that a world-wide flood, and the wrath of God, caused the vast majority of fossils that you find scattered in the fake geologic column.

As you learned, the Bible does not say that there was a global flood. 

10 hours ago, Sparks said:

It might surprise to know that you can make amber and fossils with little effort.

As you saw earlier, there are very recent fossils, and there are fossils that are billions of years old.    Someone took advantage of your trust in them.

10 hours ago, Sparks said:

You will find that the famous transitional fossils were made by people, with little effort.

Sorry, "they are all lying!" Isn't going to work for you.    As you see, even honest YE creationists admit the fact that there is massive amounts of evidence for evolution.   It wasn't Satan who fooled you; it was men who knew no better than you do, and a few charlatans who took advantage of your trust.

 

[Starise]

1 hour ago, Renskedejonge said:

Are you sure?

 

I just read this. That sounds very sons of God raped women to me.

I can only go by what I study and maybe not all of it is correct. I agree with you that there was an introduction of something besides human and I believe it is supported in the bible.

I can't say for sure if Neanderthal man did or did not have some inhuman genetic DNA. The article you post appears to support that idea there as DNA pollution.

Thank for sharing this!

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

True.   Monkeys are not apes.  And humans are apes.   Genetically, anatomically, and by fossil evidence.   Would you like to learn how we know?

Your fellow YE creationists disagree with you:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

YE Creationist Dr.Kurt Wise

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.

YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood

https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

As you learned, the Bible does not say that there was a global flood. 

As you saw earlier, there are very recent fossils, and there are fossils that are billions of years old.    Someone took advantage of your trust in them.

Sorry, "they are all lying!" Isn't going to work for you.    As you see, even honest YE creationists admit the fact that there is massive amounts of evidence for evolution.   It wasn't Satan who fooled you; it was men who knew no better than you do, and a few charlatans who took advantage of your trust.

 

You have been fooled by Satan, and by the lying scientists who write this bunk about evolution. 

[The Barbarian]

1 minute ago, Sparks said:

You have been fooled by Satan, and by the lying scientists who write this bunk about evolution. 

Sorry, that story won't fly.    As you have seen, even honest creationists admit that there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory", "gobs and gobs of it."

Why not just accept the reality and do what they do?   Admit the facts, while preferring their understanding of scripture.

[The Barbarian]

49 minutes ago, Starise said:

I can't say for sure if Neanderthal man did or did not have some inhuman genetic DNA. The article you post appears to support that idea there as DNA pollution.

Being human, they wouldn't have "inhuman genetic DNA."   

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Sorry, that story won't fly.    As you have seen, even honest creationists admit that there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory", "gobs and gobs of it."

It has flown.  They mislabel micro as macro, is why. 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Why not just accept the reality and do what they do?   Admit the facts, while preferring their understanding of scripture.

Why would I when I see the truth?  You have conflated one type of real evolution for all this false bunk.

[The Barbarian]

Sorry, that story won't fly.    As you have seen, even honest creationists admit that there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory", "gobs and gobs of it."

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

It has flown.  They mislabel micro as macro, is why. 

If you think hominid-to-man is "microevolution",we've located the problem.   Both of these guys have PhDs in biological science; they know what it is.    Last time I checked, you didn't know the difference.   Just so we're on the same page, how does science define macroevolution?

Why not just accept the reality and do what they do?   Admit the facts, while preferring their understanding of scripture.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

You have conflated one type of real evolution for all this false bunk.

The difference is, these YE creationists actually know what macroevolution is.   Understand what they are telling you.  There is abundant evidence for macroevolution, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be other explanations.   They trust their understanding of Scripture enough that they don't have to deny the facts.  

Maybe you should read what they have to say.

 

[Sparks]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Sorry, that story won't fly.    As you have seen, even honest creationists admit that there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory", "gobs and gobs of it."

If you think hominid-to-man is "microevolution",we've located the problem.   Both of these guys have PhDs in biological science; they know what it is.    Last time I checked, you didn't know the difference.   Just so we're on the same page, how does science define macroevolution?

Why not just accept the reality and do what they do?   Admit the facts, while preferring their understanding of scripture.

The difference is, these YE creationists actually know what macroevolution is.   Understand what they are telling you.  There is abundant evidence for macroevolution, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be other explanations.   They trust their understanding of Scripture enough that they don't have to deny the facts.  

Maybe you should read what they have to say.

Microevolution is real, the rest is not.  You mistake micro for macro, and the other alleged 5 types.  Haven't you ever asked yourself if evolution happened, why we don't have 20 or 30 billion people right now?  Why you never, ever, ever see macroevolution of one kind producing another kind?  Why do you see no one growing little wing stubs, or antlers? 

You have fallen for Satan's joke.