Big contradictions in the evolution theory

Carico said:

And what do you think populations consist of? Since you haven't figured that one out yet, I'll let you ponder on that one since it'll probably take you a while to figure it out.

Click to expand...

Populations consist of an ever changing species. What is the butchered and misguided point that you are trying to make here?

Carico said:

...and man rules over the animals.

Click to expand...

Tell you what, Carico. Visit your local zoo and jump in one of the animal cages. Elephants, polar bears, tigers, it really doesn't matter. Come back and tell us how successful you were "ruling" over these animals.

...and man rules over the animals.

Click to expand...

And who exactly was supposedly being prideful, here?

BTW, Carico - you haven't responded to a single point made by anyone yet. You've ignored them all and stuffed your fingers in your ears, as usual. Can you even attempt at answering some of the questions and/or comments directed at you?

The fact of the matter is that no species can ever produce offspring of a different species which evolutionists claim.

Click to expand...

You are lying, Carico. Do you understand that? NO Evolutionist on this board has ever said that an organism will produce anything other than its same species. This would be saltation, and it would, in fact, disprove evolution.

To be fair to Carico, hybridization does occur and can form new species. But this is mainly in plants, not animals. Speciation for animals typically involves reproductive isolation and accumulated variation over many generations.

Carico, an animal is not going to give birth to an entirely new species. POPULATIONS evolve. Every offspring is going to change a little after each birth, and then, after an extremely long time, you take the current generation and compare it to generations of long past, and you will have a different species.

Carico,

While I haven't read the entire thread, I have yet to see you provide any research backing up your claims. Please provide at least one link to anything backing up what you claims about evolution. If things are as clear-cut as you make up, there should be many people who have produced research supporting you. Please, one link, or at the least, the name of one article in a peer-reviewed journal.

P.S. Do you know Dad?

Carico said:

So how does that prove that a human being descended from an ape? It's very difficult for me to even make the statement that men came from apes with laughing, but I realize you're very serious about it. Humans always have, and still are only breeding human beings and apes have always and still are, breeding apes. So where's the proof that any animal gives birth to offspring so different from itself that they give it the name of another species? I'm not talking about in the imagination, I'm talking about witnessing such an event.

Click to expand...

I've actaully already replied to this, but I will again since you are willfully ignorant (which is the worst kind of ignorance.)
Humans did not come from the common ape, they share an ancestor. No one is supposed that humans descended from the present day ape. No nead to laugh, you are just wrong.

Also, everyone here is in agreement with you that a dog isn't gonna give birth to a cat. No one is saying that is possible, I really don't see why you maintain it as a point of discussion. All present day dogs did evolve from a common wolf-like ancestor, however, just as humans evolved from an ancient primate. Please, I beg of you, before you continue making a fool of yourself in this discussion please enroll yourself in some sort of elementary biology class, or maybe just read some middle-school text book. Even that would probably give you a better understanding of the topic

Carico said:

So how does that prove that a human being descended from an ape? It's very difficult for me to even make the statement that men came from apes with laughing, but I realize you're very serious about it. Humans always have, and still are only breeding human beings and apes have always and still are, breeding apes. So where's the proof that any animal gives birth to offspring so different from itself that they give it the name of another species? I'm not talking about in the imagination, I'm talking about witnessing such an event.

Click to expand...

It doesn't happen in a single generation.

Do you understand the term "accumulated genetic variation"? If you split a single population into two and isolate them, over time (i.e. many generations) they can accumulate genetic variation to the point where they can speciate (no longer interbreed). This has actually been observed in nature, so it's not something mystical.

rzuvich said:

His,
Bob Z.
Former Evolutionist/Atheist

Click to expand...

Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious.

rzuvich said:

1Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

This is a CHRISTIAN forum and there are so-called Christians actually defending Darwinist Evolutionism???

Whoa, talk about apostacy! I have a good understanding of evolutionism as a former evolutionst/athiest. It is not a lack of understanding I suffer from, it is just a fact that evolutionism is false, not science, not scientific and it is religious (%100). It is not based upon nothing but lies, ad hominem attacks on Christians, scientists and science.

Click to expand...

Evolution is not science? Is a religion? Please elaborate, this is a pretty ridiculous statement

Even IF people could mix with apes does not show origins from them or any other ape-like anything. It proves nothing in regards to any supposed evolutionary relationship. A common DESIGNER is the Bible's answer, not common descent. Screwdrivers may be phillips or flat; it does not follow that one evolved into another. Lug nuts from a Chevy can be put onto other cars....they did not evolve into other cars.

Click to expand...

Oh, this sounds like a neat idea. Please provide the proof for a designer that is so lacking in evolution.

You have to RE-INTERPRET the Bible in light of the claims of men to arrive at Evolutionism from the Bible. It is not in there, except as prophecied as a false religion of the last days. It says "evening and morning were the ____day", for crying out loud!

Click to expand...

Religious authorities have be re-interpreting the bible from pretty much its conception, why single them out now? And I really have a hard time seeing how you can hold the bible as an accurate source of historical, let alone scientific, evidence when you say you are versed in science

Any CHRISTIAN who defends Darwinism lacks knowledge of both science, Evolutionism and the Bible-and wholesale rejects what God wrote concerning origins. No, Genesis is not open to interpretation because of what men say (no matter HOW MANY say it). God knows how to communicate-it is the rejector who does not know how to listen.

Click to expand...

False dichotomy. Also, the entire point of the bible, or any religious text, is its interpretation. Just because one chooses to believe in God does not mean that person has to abandon all rationality. Also, believing in God has little to do with evolution; once again, science has no place for God.

True scientists can not accept the fable and religion of evolution, despite how they claim Creationists are not true scientists. They cannot even practice real science ***in regards to origins***, since they are biased religious nuts.

No Christians should EVER defend such a deadly, murderous religion as Darwiniam. Ever. Ugh...it is sickening.

True science knows nothing of evolutionism.

Click to expand...

And what is included in "true" science? Faith healing? Demonic possesion? How is evolution a religion? Religion and science may coexist, but they may never intersect.

In six days means six days, not millions of years.

Click to expand...

Well, that's your interpretation.

Carico said:

It's too bad you can't support your assertions with any facts. I can. Humans breed humans and apes breed apes. Those are facts.

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. Here is another one. Humans are not another category besides apes, humans are a subcategory of apes. Nested hierachies.

Hence my previous pointing out of a category mistake of yours.

Carico said:

Yours are figments of your imagination.

Click to expand...

Carico said:

And who said that human beings are a "subcategory of apes"? A man with a Ph.D.? Sorry, but there are other men with Ph.D's who disagree with them. So who's right? Just a guess? Absolutely.

Click to expand...

Argument from authority. This is the third different argumentative fallacy you've evoked in a six pages.
And who says God created man in six days? A minister? There are some rabbis, imans, and monks I'd like you to meet.

rzuvich said:

1Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

This is a CHRISTIAN forum and there are so-called Christians actually defending Darwinist Evolutionism???

Whoa, talk about apostacy! I have a good understanding of evolutionism as a former evolutionst/athiest. It is not a lack of understanding I suffer from, it is just a fact that evolutionism is false, not science, not scientific and it is religious (%100). It is not based upon nothing but lies, ad hominem attacks on Christians, scientists and science.

Click to expand...

Wow, first post and you weigh in with a doozy!! First please don't call it "evolutionism". It's simply evolution. Of course there are Christians (not even "so-called") understanding/defending evolution. They have the ability to think objectively.

Also, please don't use the word "evolutionist"--I agree with evolution, but that no more makes me an evolutionist that a gravitationalist.

Please define science and religion then we can discuss your claims. Also, please show one article on evolution that attacks Christians or Christianity.

rzuvich said:

Even IF people could mix with apes does not show origins from them or any other ape-like anything. It proves nothing in regards to any supposed evolutionary relationship. A common DESIGNER is the Bible's answer, not common descent. Screwdrivers may be phillips or flat; it does not follow that one evolved into another. Lug nuts from a Chevy can be put onto other cars....they did not evolve into other cars.

Click to expand...

A common designer is the Bibles answer? If you start with the assumption something can never be wrong, in your mind it will never be wrong. You have to work from observations to conclusions, not the other way around. Also, screwdrivers and bolts are inorganic and do not reproduce. These are two of the most hiliarious examples ever put forth on these forums. And you claim to understand evolution?

rzuvich said:

You have to RE-INTERPRET the Bible in light of the claims of men to arrive at Evolutionism from the Bible. It is not in there, except as prophecied as a false religion of the last days. It says "evening and morning were the ____day", for crying out loud!

Click to expand...

So on what basis do you interpret the Bible? Which translation? How do you know it's the correct translation? If there are many different translations, meaning those who translated it don't agree on it's interpretation, how can you be certain you're correct?

Again, define religion.

rzuvich said:

Any CHRISTIAN who defends Darwinism lacks knowledge of both science, Evolutionism and the Bible-and wholesale rejects what God wrote concerning origins. No, Genesis is not open to interpretation because of what men say (no matter HOW MANY say it). God knows how to communicate-it is the rejector who does not know how to listen.

Click to expand...

What is Darwinism? A worship of Darwin? Scientists don't worship Darwin or anyone else. They study evolution. Evolution has come a long way since 1859. (Hint: "both" means two, not three--but a small point).

Again, which interpretation of the Bible do you use and why? If God knows how to communicate, you'd think s/he would have done a better job by now.

rzuvich said:

True scientists can not accept the fable and religion of evolution, despite how they claim Creationists are not true scientists. They cannot even practice real science ***in regards to origins***, since they are biased religious nuts.

Click to expand...

Again, define religion and "real science" and we'll go from there.

Please show one ID/Creationist article in a respected peer-reviewed journal.

Show how they are biased religious nuts. Please be specific with names and supporting evidence.

rzuvich said:

No Christians should EVER defend such a deadly, murderous religion as Darwiniam. Ever. Ugh...it is sickening.

Click to expand...

Umm, ok. Back away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. "Darwiniam"??!! That is a new one. Kudos.

rzuvich said:

True science knows nothing of evolutionism.

Click to expand...

On this I agree, as there is no such thing as evolutionism.

rzuvich said:

2 Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

"Millions of years" is a fable.

2 Peter 3:3-4
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

In six days means six days, not millions of years.

Click to expand...

Using the Bible to show the Bible is true is circular reasoning.

rzuvich said:

His,
Bob Z.
Former Evolutionist/Atheist

Click to expand...

Why were you once an atheist out of curiosity? What made you see the "error" of your ways?

Carico said:

And who said that human beings are a "subcategory of apes"? A man with a Ph.D.? Sorry, but there are other men with Ph.D's who disagree with them. So who's right? Just a guess? Absolutely.

Click to expand...

And who said that all poodles are "a subcategory of dogs"?

Really, Carico... ::

Carico said:

And who said that human beings are a "subcategory of apes"? A man with a Ph.D.? Sorry, but there are other men with Ph.D's who disagree with them. So who's right? Just a guess? Absolutely.

Click to expand...

Please provide us with some names and their articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

Pete Harcoff said:

Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious.

Click to expand...

POE'S LAW:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.

rzuvich said:

1Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

This is a CHRISTIAN forum and there are so-called Christians actually defending Darwinist Evolutionism???

Click to expand...

I find this funny... You quote Paul saying the Hebrew genealogies are worthless... Somehow try to use it against evolution... And all the time it is the YEC movement that uses the Hebrew genealogies to "prove" the Earth is young...

There is something wrong with this argument...