Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

kaya'08 said:

If your Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sihk, Athiest, Agnostic, whatever, i want to hear your opinions on Evolution. Did it occur? If so, are we the biologically enhanced version of Apes, changed over thousands of years of evolution? Or did it not happen at all. Does it have any scientific basis? Or did a being from a greater source place us here?

Whats your opinions?

Click to expand...

We did not evolve from apes, we evolved from a common ancestor.

I believe that a greater power created the worlds, galaxies, ect. Evolution is how everything after that came to be.

Tucker Case said:

I don't think you comprehended the full meaning of my post. The intelligent designer would use mechanisms (evolutionary mechanisms) as I've said. This may include not changing things that don't require changing from species to species along the evolutionary pathway.

Click to expand...

Then it's not an intelligent designer, it's retarded fumbler, working blindly with no pre-established goal in mind, and is thus completely indistinguishable from evolution by natural selection, and by Occam's Razor an irrelevant unnecessary complication, and as such should be discarded.

Tucker Case said:

What you fail to realize is that you haven't answered why the nerve swoops down. You've only shown HOW it exists in all species of animals from fish to humans.

Click to expand...

Actually, I did.

In the fish, it swoops down to operate gills or whatever it is that it does in fish, and in fish it's perfectly sensible for the nerve to be where it is. Because humans (and all non-fish vertebrates) evolved from fish, that nerve has been distorted from it's original optimal fishy function.

Tucker Case said:

The only thing you've shown is that the shape of this nerve has not hindered reproductive success over the course of evolution. Why has this nerve not changed?

Click to expand...

Because evolution works with what it has. It doesn't intelligently optimize anything. If a modification works and the animal survives to make little animals, the evolutionary modification is a success and will be retained.

Tucker Case said:

The simple answer: It had no bearing on reproductive success, therefore there was no reason for it to change. That doesn't answer why it exists in said form. To learn that, we must go back to the first ever species that this trait appears in and explain how it was reproductively beneficial for this swoop to be present.

Click to expand...

No. I answered the "why". The answer is because our ancestors were fish.

Tucker Case said:

Of course, since it did not change, it is in fact the OPPOSITE of evolution. It is the STAGNATION of a trait.

Click to expand...

Whatever that means.

You think matters of "stagnation" are significant to a blind process that only selects for what works in the here and now, and has no interest in the optimal because it's not an intelligent process, merely a statistical one?

Tucker Case said:

But let's say you actually explained the reason that the shape exists. All you would be doing is describing HOW that trait came into existence. There is no way you can explain WHY the first creature that had this trait came to exist, only HOW it came to exist.

Click to expand...

It worked for fish.

That counts as a "why".

Tucker Case said:

Evolution can only explain how a species came into existence. It cannot divine a purpose to that existence. ID tries to give a purpose to existence: God's will.

Click to expand...

ID is nonsense, as I've shown.

The vermiform appendix in humans is the relic of our ancestral past as animals that needed to ferment volumes of leafy substances. In humans it serves as a receptacle for bacteria and waste that has the unpleasant habit of swelling and exploding, and which killed up to 20% of the population in pre-medical times. Wonderful intelligent design, that, eh?

kaya'08 said:

If your Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sihk, Athiest, Agnostic, whatever, i want to hear your opinions on Evolution. Did it occur? If so, are we the biologically enhanced version of Apes, changed over thousands of years of evolution? Or did it not happen at all. Does it have any scientific basis? Or did a being from a greater source place us here?

Whats your opinions?

Click to expand...

This is another fine example of a poll which should have an "other" option.

Even though I have a yes or no answer, I can't vote because I don't agree with the reasoning embedded in the options given.

No, we did not evolve from apes. Humans and apes both share a common ancestor.

Evolution is a fact, but it is all different fact for all different evolutionists:

Korimyr the Rat said:

‘’shaping our ancestors' development from our humanoid forebears’’, .

Click to expand...

-here we have the fact of humanoid forebears, - what can they be, nobody knows. Some passage, a ritual sign of a hand pointing to a thick mist, some humanoid (?) some forebears are there in the mist.

talloulou americanwoman. said:

I remain completely open to the idea that we may have been genetically interfered with by aliens.

Click to expand...

Here we have the fact of aliens. Who did genetically interfered with aliens, - nobody knows. Some passage, a ritual sign of a hand pointing to a thick mist, some aliens are there in the mist.

Lachean said:

in fact we did not evolve from modern apes, we have a common ancestor with them. That ancestor was also an ape, as are we. "Ape" just means homonid. .

Click to expand...

Humans are apes, apes are human, we were and were are remaining to be apes. What ape? Can we see it? Or we have to fantasize it as all evolutionists do? here we have the fact of an ape, - what ape, nobody knows. Some passage, a ritual sign of a hand pointing to a thick mist, an unknown ape is there in the mist.

Tucker Case said:

I'm proof positive, that at some point along the evolutionary pathway, one of my ancestors ****ed a gorilla. .

Click to expand...

You do it, and that is proof positive that your ancestors did the same.

Arch Enemy said:

Most evolutionists (there are always the nut-jobs) agree that we did not evolve from Apes. That we evolved from a similar biological entity. .

Click to expand...

here we have the fact of a similar biological entity, - what can it be, - nobody knows. A ritual sign of a hand

celticlord said:

Humans did not evolve from apes. Apes and humans share common ancestry. .

Click to expand...

here we have the fact of common ancestry – which is nether apes nor humans, - what can they be, nobody knows (crocodiles,? Cats?). Some passage, a ritual sign of a hand pointing to a thick mist, some common ancestry is there in the mist.

celticlord said:

Are we quite certain the process is evolution and not devolution? .

Click to expand...

We are not sure whether it is evolution but not ID (devolution), I guess?

Goshin said:

If you are familiar with Donkeys, you may have observed that the male donkey is endowed with a remarkably long penis. Remarkably long. .

Click to expand...

From the books of Freud. What would Freud say about ‘’I'm proof positive, that at some point along the evolutionary pathway, one of my ancestors ****ed a gorilla Remarkably long.’’?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

I use the word "ape" to mean "something like an ape". .

Click to expand...

here we have the fact of "something like an ape". - what can that be, nobody knows . Some passage, a ritual sign of a hand pointing to a thick mist, "something like an ape" is there in the mist.

creativedreams said:

It is my personal theory that Earth had visitors long ago who genetically altered the apes to create humans. .

Click to expand...

Every evolutionist has his own theory, his own facts of evolution. I just went through a few pages and don’t feel like laughing any more. Evolution is a fact… all different fact for all different believers in evolution. Which one should I choose? How ever it is possible to conceive an idea that humans and apes are the same or have evolved from a common ancestor, whatever is the fantasized ancestor? I wouldn’t know. Evolutionists wouldn’t explain.
http://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/geek_tech_1a.jpg

AND THAT MUST BE THE COMMON ANSESTOR:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yDV7sDnXCA8/SJiRu1V2wWI/AAAAAAAAAFI/rWVjfdIwYV4/s320/1896_telephone.jpg
How this idea about our common ancestor is ever different from the idea that my Blackberry has naturally, by itself evolved from Rikstelefone? I wouldn’t know. Evolutionists wouldn’t explain.

And nobody ever points to that mysterious ancestor, ape, and alien, "something like an ape", - I have to fantasize such all on my own. What if I cannot live by fantasies like evolutionists do? Then I guess I have to bear with all the personal attacks from evolutionists united, that is the only fact which is common for all of them besides the ability to sheer fantasies.

I chose the first option, but we didn't evolve from any modern apes. Apes and humans share a common ancestor.

talloulou said:

He's saying evolution as an answer to our origins is -in his mind- debunked. He is saying in the answer to how we came about it is clear to him that evolution did not occur.

This is not the same as negating all evolution. Do you understand that? .

Click to expand...

He is saying:. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred."



It is a simple basic sentence. And it is another proof that evolutionists cannot understand a simple sentence. I bet you have never tried to read Origins of Life, - it is all about evolution only. He is saying that evolution could not have occurred. Do you understand that? In the next quote he indeed addresses the question of genesis. It is clear he does not believe in evolution, and the less he believes in biogenesis. You are trying to read out what you want to read out, - it is common for evolutionists. And you are trying to make a big deal from a side note to the text while completly ingoring the text, - it is common for evolutionists.

talloulou said:

As to your other questions truthfully I'm not sure I always understand what you're saying/asking. I think we're beyond being able to understand one another. I haven't decided if it's on principal or a language thing. Probably a combination. .

Click to expand...

I have been posting here for years and I know that only evolutionists use this disrespectful “no comprehende’’ pretence in order to avoid answering simplest questions. You don’t understand Smalley, you don’t understand pictures of the evolution of a phone, you don’t understand Origins of Life – this is a sure sign of an evolutionist. In a civilized society, if one does not understand something or is not sure one would ask for clarification, - but evolutionists do not belong to a civilized society. This “no comprehende” pretence is just a variant of ad hom, and I announced in the beginning that evolutionists do always desert to ad homs as to the only debate tactics they know. All I have to do is to count the ad homs,- Lightdemon, -one, Lightdemon -2, talloulou, - 3…

talloulou said:

Evolution is a factual well observed, well documented phenomenon. .

Click to expand...

Then why neither you nor any evolutionist can ever link to at least one, justone observation of the phenomena of evolution?

Oh, I am sorry, I already asked this question, I should stop proving 50 times in a raw that evolutionists do not understand simplest questions, - I should rather get used to that… get used, that ''no comprehende '' tactics...
get used, get used……

justone said:

Then why neither you nor any evolutionist can ever link to at least one, justone observation of the phenomena of evolution?

Click to expand...

Here is just one link:

Observed Instances of Speciation

Here's another:

Evolution Observed in Laboratory Bacteria

And another:

Fast Evolution Observed in Butterflies

I don't really expect that you'll read those reports. You certainly won't accept them. And I've got little doubt that you'll be back later in this thread, or some other, claiming that no evolutionist has ever been able to link to just one observation of the phenomenon of evolution.

:2wave:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Creationism: Man was created out of dust or dirt or clay or something the giraffes dropped from on high or whatever it is the Bible says by this god guy that blew the Holy-tosis of life into him.

Scientific Reality: Man is an animal evolved from other animals following the same processes of evolution by natural selection that all life forms on this planet have followed.

There.

Click to expand...

So... where's the proof that disproves Creationism?

Whatever our origin, I would like to think that we are STILL evolving. But the process is so tedious and rejects are not eliminated quickly enough.:2razz:

Goobieman said:

So... where's the proof that disproves Creationism?

Click to expand...

It is irrational to even ask for proof supporting or falsifying Creationism since Creationism does not conform to the scientific method and is not a scientific theory in the least.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Then it's not an intelligent designer, it's retarded fumbler, working blindly with no pre-established goal in mind, and is thus completely indistinguishable from evolution by natural selection, and by Occam's Razor an irrelevant unnecessary complication, and as such should be discarded.



Actually, I did.

In the fish, it swoops down to operate gills or whatever it is that it does in fish, and in fish it's perfectly sensible for the nerve to be where it is. Because humans (and all non-fish vertebrates) evolved from fish, that nerve has been distorted from it's original optimal fishy function.
Because evolution works with what it has. It doesn't intelligently optimize anything. If a modification works and the animal survives to make little animals, the evolutionary modification is a success and will be retained.
No. I answered the "why". The answer is because our ancestors were fish.

Whatever that means.

You think matters of "stagnation" are significant to a blind process that only selects for what works in the here and now, and has no interest in the optimal because it's not an intelligent process, merely a statistical one?
It worked for fish.

That counts as a "why".
ID is nonsense, as I've shown.
The vermiform appendix in humans is the relic of our ancestral past as animals that needed to ferment volumes of leafy substances. In humans it serves as a receptacle for bacteria and waste that has the unpleasant habit of swelling and exploding, and which killed up to 20% of the population in pre-medical times. Wonderful intelligent design, that, eh?

Click to expand...

I think life is perfect. It HAS perfectly met to what is around it as much as it could at the time. Just take a look outside and you will see that every single tree is perfect in accordance to what was put in front of it. In a world with nothing to consider in what a tree has to do to be perfect it in fact would be perfect. So now perfect is having a fencepost in the middle of your trunk and NOT being symmetrical.

Perfect is doing exactly what it was meant to do and nothing more/less. And evolution is the imperfect thing surviving and becoming perfect while all the old versions die.

Jerry said:

It is irrational to even ask for proof supporting or falsifying Creationism since Creationism does not conform to the scientific method and is not a scientific theory in the least.

Click to expand...

Had there not been a claim that Creationism has been disproven, I would not have asked.

But, such a claim was made, so...

talloulou said:

I find it hard to readily buy into the idea that there was a natural progression/evolution from ape to human sans interference of some sort.

Click to expand...

Why do you find that hard to believe?

Some think that humans, for all of our dubious accomplishments, must have been precipitated by a force greater than genetic change over time (In God's image, et cetera). I don't see how or why we would be given any special dispensation.


Duke

Goobieman said:

Had there not been a claim that Creationism has been disproven, I would not have asked.

But, such a claim was made, so...

Click to expand...

That claim is equally irrational.

It is precisely because Creationism can not be falsified that Creationism is not a scientific theory. Since it is not a scientific theory, one can't claim that it has been disproved.

Jerry said:

That claim is equally irrational.

It is precisely because Creationism can not be falsified that Creationism is not a scientific theory. Since it is not a scientific theory, one can't claim that it has been disproved.

Click to expand...

You can't say it is disproved... Just not a theory. It is instead an instinct. Or a theory only provable by death. And even that isn't a fact.

Jerry said:

That claim is equally irrational.
It is precisely because Creationism can not be falsified that Creationism is not a scientific theory. Since it is not a scientific theory, one can't claim that it has been disproved.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know.
But there are clearly people here that believe it -has- been disproven.

dirtpoorchris said:

You can't say it is disproved... Just not a theory. It is instead an instinct. Or a theory only provable by death. And even that isn't a fact.

Click to expand...

I agree. We can simply say that it's not a theory and offer personal speculation from there.

If we are discussing valid scientific theories then we are automatically excluding Creationism by default.

Grateful Heart said:

Here is just one link:

Observed Instances of Speciation
And another:

Fast Evolution Observed in Butterflies

Click to expand...

Thank you. It is not like there are too many evolutionists who would be willing to try to understand a simple question. But you prove that there are a few exclusions. I don’t know for how long you can last yet, but at least you have made an unusual effort.

First of all I have to talk you to a simple understanding that I need one, justone link, not 2, not 3, not many – justone link would be enough for me to reconsider my view. As a rule evolutionists are not good with arithmetic, they cannot count to one. I know a 4 years old, he can count to 10, I have not met an evolutionist who can count to 1, yet. Can you try the next time?

Secondly, when I ask for a link, I a kind of expect not a link to propagandist articles in propagandists newspapers and magazines. I can do that myself, - look:

Originally Posted by justone said:

Observed Instances of Speciation
by Joseph Boxhorn
Copyright © 1993-2004
[Last Update: September 1, 1995]

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. There are four modes of natural speciation, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments. Observed examples of each kind of speciation are provided throughout.[1] .

Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46932-evolution-did-we-really-evolve-apes-9.html#post1057996306

I even bolded red Observed examples of each kind of speciation are provided throughout
And I asked :

Originally Posted by justone said:

Can you link me to one justone peer reviewed publication which demonstrates one justone observable factual occurrence of a NEW biological species arisal? One justone reference in the whole history of thousands experiments and observations? Not 2 not 3 not many, but one justone? One justone Observed example of speciation of whatever kind?

Click to expand...

Why would an evolutionist post my own link as a reply to my question based on the link? I would never know, I am afraid. Some of them claim that they are apes… I hope you are not an ape, - is it possible that you are not?


I know that evolutionists do not understand minimal fairness, so I have to try to explain and bold it red now – a link to a peer reviewed scientific publication. For instance: The link to the propagandist site: Observed Instances of Speciation has a whole list which includes a whole bunch of peer reviewed articles. I am not even asking for such a fairness of not submitting an article from an evolutionist magazine where scientists do not publish their works. I am asking for one, justone article a peer reviewed scientific publication, so I can read and review it. Can you understand?

I bet you think I am stupid betting my views on one justone article. Evolutionists being the most ignorant part of the public think that others are stupid. I want you to spend days and possibly weeks of your life, and possibly devote your whole life looking for one, justone observation of speciation. I want to ruin your days and possibly your life. It is my little revenge for all the personal insults I always get from evolutionists. It is my little revenge for the outrage of evolutionists over science, for the aggressive violence of evolutionists putting science in its darkest ages. Because I not only know that you will never find a single observation of speciation in peer reviewed publications, but I also know why.

Grateful Heart said:

Here's another:

Evolution Observed in Laboratory Bacteria

I don't really expect that you'll read those reports. You certainly won't accept them. And I've got little doubt that you'll be back later in this thread, or some other, claiming that no evolutionist has ever been able to link to just one observation of the phenomenon of evolution.

:2wave:

Click to expand...

You don’t worry about me reading, try to become an exclusion and read an article before you decide that you have found one and you are ready to post it. The first thing evolutionists do – they make me read articles for them.

Your “report”” is not qualified to be a report, but again as a courtesy – the quality one will never find in an evolutionists I have read it and it says:
‘’Somewhere around the 31,500th generation, the E. Coli developed a trait not present in the original strain: they began to be able to metabolise citrate, the inability of which is one of the main ways scientists distinguish E. Coli from other bacteria.’’


Just some of my reports say:
Plasmids in Escherichia coli controlling citrate-utilizing ability.

The citrate-utilizing ability of 19 out of 22 citrate-positive Escherichia coli strains isolated from pig sewage was transferred via conjugation to E. coli K-12.
The Escherichia coli Citrate Carrier CitT: a Member of a Novel Eubacterial Transporter Family Related to the 2-Oxoglutarate/Malate Translocator from Spinach Chloroplasts -- Pos et al. 180 (16): 4160 -- The Journal of Bacteriology

Escherichia coli converts citrate to acetate and succinate. Here we report that the open reading frame ……. on the E. coli chromosome between rna and the citrate lyase genes encodes a citrate carrier.
Active site mutants of Escherichia coli citrate synthase. Effects of mutations on catalytic and allosteric properties -- Pereira et al. 269 (1): 412 -- Journal of Biological Chemistry
The mutations of histidine 264 and aspartate 362 affect steady-state kinetics as would be anticipated from current models for citrate synthase catalysis, and resemble mutations of these residues, in pig heart and E. coli enzyme, reported by others…

As you can see I do read. You are not the 1st evolutionist who is trying. All of them know that I do respect their attempts and do pay attention, - until the moment they go completely blind and desert to strawmen and personal insults. Some of them just circle around – all I have to do is to demonstrate to the public their circling and circus. Some of them cut and run. But none of them has ever submitted one justone link. Because it cannot be there. And all of them go to other treads and even other forums and keep on yelling that evolution has been observed and it is a fact. Some of them are here and they looking at you, knowing what is going to happen as good as I do. You are not the 1st one.

In reality, as one can see from the reports, a number of strains of E. Coli is known to metabolize citrate. E. Coli, as all other bacteria has an extraordinary ability to mutation, - this is what bacteria are known for. Mechanisms of RNA transportation and other which allow E.Coli to convert (or not to convert) citrate are not very well understood or known. Serious scientists study and try to decode such mechanisms, - they follow methodology of the Christian creationist scientist Gregor Mendel, while evolutionists conduct lengthy and unclean and UNREPEATED manipulations and post dubious conclusions, - they follow methodology of Darwin . So, would you be so kind to explain what is the conclusion???: -

in the beginning we had E. Coli known for some strains capable of metabolizing citrate – and they have evolved into__________________________________________________
please, be so kind to fill the blank.

And that is short exert from what I can say about microevolution. I suggest you to try Nylon eating bacteria, - it is another evolutionists’ favorite after E.Coli. …- everything, even telephones looks like evolution to them. You really want to start me on bacteria? Go ahead, but remember, you have one justone shot.

(I must confess that I have never been able to keep my threat of one shot. I always allowed more than one for evolutionists, I cannot really hold them as grown up humans when they claim to be apes…and so I am doing it again, - may be it is just fun for me to see it to the end, to the insults, strawmen, etc.)

BTW, it is not important, but if you have a minute, - I did not get to you in my post about facts of evolution, can you describe in your personal world of fantasies how I should imagine the ancestor - as an ape…? of what kind, something similar to ape? Donkey with a remarkable penis? an alien? How do you develop such abilities to live by fantasies?

Khayembii Communique said:

Newton's iron laws, for example, were "verified" for hundreds of years until Einstein came along and singlehandedly demolished them with Relativity.

Click to expand...

Grateful Heart said:

I don't disagree with your post here

Click to expand...

Tucker Case said:

Well said.

Click to expand...

I agree with you Tucker. It is really well said. As a rule evolutionists’ thoughts are completely undecipherable, especially when they talk about Gravity and Relativity– and they do like to talk about Gravity and Relativity more than about anything else. Khayembii Communique has been able to produce a rounded sentence here. I have recognized it. This is what exactly they teach in schools, colleges, universities, TV and everywhere. This is why evolutionists make me vomit. They accept no reason, no facts, no appeal to simple humanity which should be in each and every human. I have been thinking – why. I cannot make myself to accept their claims that they are apes as an explanation…. yet. I am a kind of making my own theory to explain, - but it is too long even to start…

…Communists and especially the bloodiest maniac who is on the avatar of Communique hated Henri Poincaré because Poincaré openly despised their primitive ape like thinking... …It is like no win situation… - on other hand Poincaré never cared to entertain half educated masses as much Einstein did … Now the masses are imposing their primitive thinking… I don’t like proletariat, what can I say, - I don’t. I wouldn’t like to introduce them to Henri Poincaré, one of the most brilliant minds, the first one to present modern principle of relativity and Lorentz transformations to the learned public, - I have no intention to humiliate one of the greatest by such a comical intruduction. Let’s them keep on doing it singlehandedly to relieve themselves from their monkey urges once in a while.

I would introduce them to Einstein, because Einstein wouldn’t mind, but I am afraid they wouldn’t ever listen to anything he says if they don’t like it if it does not meet their blind beliefs. It does not matter to them that Einstein – personally, by himself, straight forward and clear in simple sentences in Theory of relativity itself, - published and available, that Einstein has been always insisting and explaining that relativity DOES CONFIRM to laws and theories of Newton. Because he was one of the scientists who followed the rules of science (one of the last scientists?). He knew he couldn’t sell HIS relativity, his theory couldn’t even have any creditability as a scientific if it could be suspected in disproving or abolishing another theory made in accordance with the rules of science, - when the rule 4 says that theories made in accordance with the rules of science do net get disproved or abolished or dismissed. Einstein knew the rules and followed the rules…. in difference from evolutionists.

It is sad to see how much damage has been done to science to by evolutionists – just in order to make fantasies of evolution look scientific; how much of damage has been done to some human brains… I still think they are not apes among us.

What's most interesting to me about these evolution debates online is the frequent flipping back and forth between the ideas of creationism and intelligent design. Very often those who refuse to accept evolution will make arguments for both... with little or no understanding of the difference. Thus terms such as evolutionist and Darwinist get tossed around in vitriolic fits with little or no meaning.

Jerry said:

That claim is equally irrational.

It is precisely because Creationism can not be falsified that Creationism is not a scientific theory. Since it is not a scientific theory, one can't claim that it has been disproved.

Click to expand...

Oh, sure we can. Only a retarded Creatrix would put the vagus nerve in humans where it is. That's just one example from one animal. There are countless species, and not one single one of them is "perfectly" adapted to it's environment, it's merely adapted well enough to survive.

Nah, Creationism was disproved long ago, even before it was ruled as nothing but a lame attempt to introduce religion into public classrooms.

The evidence for human evolution from common ancestors with today's bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, orantutangs, and going further back, cats, dogs, and fish, is irrefutable. Since that evidence is conclusive in support of the fact of evolution by natural selection, the oddball weirdo religious dogmas to the contrary are disproven.

How about if those people disprove the established facts of evolution before they try to concoct another off the wall fantasy to replace it?

Really. Science disproved creationism long long ago. Easy enough to do. The Christians claim their god is a perfect god. Creationism is a Christian construct. The facts of life on planet earth are that living animals are hodgepodges of morphologies originally intended for one purpose being adapted to another over time. Any "designer" that produced "designs" like that is clearly imperfect, blind, and ignorant. Ergo, by the definitions the Christians have of their god, He could not have designed life on earth. Thus, Creationism is false.

Yeah, then they turn around and argue that they're not talking about a "christian" god.

Yeah, right. There's no evidence supporting their claim, there's the facts of evolution denying it, they're all disproven.

Jerry said:

Since it is not a scientific theory, one can't claim that it has been disproved.

Click to expand...

As a scientific theory, no YEC, cannot be claimed to be disproved. But as general idea not to mention specific arguments Creationism makes, it can be argued with utmost certainty that creationism has been disproved.

justone said:

I agree with you Tucker. It is really well said. As a rule evolutionists’ thoughts are completely undecipherable, especially when they talk about Gravity and Relativity– and they do like to talk about Gravity and Relativity more than about anything else. Khayembii Communique has been able to produce a rounded sentence here. I have recognized it. This is what exactly they teach in schools, colleges, universities, TV and everywhere. This is why evolutionists make me vomit. They accept no reason, no facts, no appeal to simple humanity which should be in each and every human. I have been thinking – why. I cannot make myself to accept their claims that they are apes as an explanation…. yet. I am a kind of making my own theory to explain, - but it is too long even to start…

…Communists and especially the bloodiest maniac who is on the avatar of Communique hated Henri Poincaré because Poincaré openly despised their primitive ape like thinking... …It is like no win situation… - on other hand Poincaré never cared to entertain half educated masses as much Einstein did … Now the masses are imposing their primitive thinking… I don’t like proletariat, what can I say, - I don’t. I wouldn’t like to introduce them to Henri Poincaré, one of the most brilliant minds, the first one to present modern principle of relativity and Lorentz transformations to the learned public, - I have no intention to humiliate one of the greatest by such a comical intruduction. Let’s them keep on doing it singlehandedly to relieve themselves from their monkey urges once in a while.

I would introduce them to Einstein, because Einstein wouldn’t mind, but I am afraid they wouldn’t ever listen to anything he says if they don’t like it if it does not meet their blind beliefs. It does not matter to them that Einstein – personally, by himself, straight forward and clear in simple sentences in Theory of relativity itself, - published and available, that Einstein has been always insisting and explaining that relativity DOES CONFIRM to laws and theories of Newton. Because he was one of the scientists who followed the rules of science (one of the last scientists?). He knew he couldn’t sell HIS relativity, his theory couldn’t even have any creditability as a scientific if it could be suspected in disproving or abolishing another theory made in accordance with the rules of science, - when the rule 4 says that theories made in accordance with the rules of science do net get disproved or abolished or dismissed. Einstein knew the rules and followed the rules…. in difference from evolutionists.

It is sad to see how much damage has been done to science to by evolutionists – just in order to make fantasies of evolution look scientific; how much of damage has been done to some human brains… I still think they are not apes among us.

Click to expand...

More accurately, Einstein said that Relativity "Quantitatively... made little modification in Newton's theory, but qualitatively a deep-seated one."

And that Relativity "may be conceived as an organic development of Newton's thought."

I agree that it was an advancement of Newton's work. It didn't demolish them as was said (to clarify: when I said "well said", I was referring to the point that was being made about the presumption of truth that people have regarding evolution. The presumption should be that the theory is falsifiable. I was not referring to the irrelevant detail regarding Einstein and Newton because, well, it's accuracy was irrelevant. The point was still clear regardless of the accuracy of that detail. And the point is that nothing should be regarded as "truth" while knowledge is still incomplete)

As far as Poincare goes, I, too, am a huge fan of his work. He is well-known to mathematicians and physicists, but he deserves far more recognition than he gets in general discussion when discussing the most brilliant minds of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially when discussing relativity.

But of course, all of this is fairly irrelevant in the discussion of evolution. The point that was beng made and affirmed as a good one by me was that we shouldn't assume that evolution is written-in-stone "fact". Nor should it be assumed to be written-in-stone "fantasy".

It should be viewed as a scientific theory and, thus, it should be considered falsifiable. As it stands, it may or it may not be accurate.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Oh, sure we can....
Nah, Creationism was disproved long ago
Science disproved creationism long long ago. Easy enough to do.

Click to expand...

Odd... I have asked for this proof, and you have supplied none.
Why is that?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Really. Science disproved creationism long long ago. Easy enough to do. The Christians claim their god is a perfect god. Creationism is a Christian construct. The facts of life on planet earth are that living animals are hodgepodges of morphologies originally intended for one purpose being adapted to another over time. Any "designer" that produced "designs" like that is clearly imperfect, blind, and ignorant. Ergo, by the definitions the Christians have of their god, He could not have designed life on earth. Thus, Creationism is false.

Click to expand...

Your logic, just so you know, is flawed.

Regardless of God's perfection, the general teaching in most religions about god is that he is omnipotent, and can do as he damn well pleases, and so he could easily have designed life on earth with all the "imperfections" you cite.

Additionally, your own language is indicative of a creator: "morphologies originally intended for one purpose....." Intent and purpose are constructs of the mind, and of the will--they are constructs of sentience. If there is no creator, no sentience, there can be neither intent nor purpose.

Finally, your imperfections argument is suspect because it takes each species in isolation. Those imperfections could quite easily be suboptimizations of the discrete parts necessary to optimize the larger system and ecology.

Creationism is not proved, not at all. Neither has it been disproved--and certainly not by the argument you have provided.