How is this "evolutionary"?

[Teckor]

lol. but seriously folks, back on trck for a moment.

how many of u have heard (or read, etc) of some really DUMB evolutionary arguement?
*raises hand* I have, and it gets annoying after the third or fourth one.

[Armany]

Java Man was one really stupid one that turned out to be a complete fabrication. I read that in "The Case for a Creator."

Another evolutionary lie is the embryo-to-fetus-to-birth diagram that compares different stages of pre-natal development between humans, fish, and some other animals like rabbits. The guy that drew the things deliberately tampered with the drawings to make them seem similar, all for the sake of promoting evolution. Ridiculous, if you ask me.

[falklands]

Or the Nebraska man, where they found a tooth among some ancient tools, immediately claimed it was the fossilized tooth of a semi-man, and had artists draw pictures of a hulking brute that seemed convincing. Later, they found out the tooth was from a kind of pig.

Have you seen the famous evolutionary exhibit found in so many textbooks that deals with the so-called evolution of the horse? The bones and pictures they showed seemed to show excellent evidence for evolution, displaying how the modern horse's ancestors were a lot smaller, and had less developed bones. Well, the skeletons of the "earliest" horse and the modern horse were found in the same geological layer. Which means it is totally false.

[heartofgold]

There's just not very much evidence for evolution. I think everyone should just throw it out and find some other way to spoil the oh-so-evil Christians dioballical plot to overthrow the world through science. ;D

[falklands]

Like saying, "we all appeared here by spontaneous combustion. Since that seems to be so supernatural, we bow down to spontaneous combustion as a deity. At least it's not the God of the Bible." ;D

[heartofgold]

Yea, I never got that. If you're going to have a chain reaction, you have to have something to start it. Even a spontaneous combustion has to have something somewhere to make it happen. I mean, how can something spontaneously combust out of nothing?

[gynovia]

hehe, good point.

[Geberia]

There is alot fo circular reasoning going on too.

[Teckor]

Furthermore, some Greek philosophers used to believe in "spontaneous life" (from rotten meat = flies, water = fish, so on) which was latter disproven. Ppl used to believe bacteria came out of no-where, till that too was proven wrong. (Note: these were all listed, in detail, in my Grade 10 science textbook).

Also, besides all the junk evidence, evolutionists "claim" that something proves evolution but yet it does the exact opposite. Or how about evidence that doesn't exist like the large scale change of creatures never proven, only a silly little hypothesis. Or how about over dependance on C-14 dating, and so on.

Something I'd love to say right now is this, look for ays to use their own words against them. When they say that creationism isn't science b/c it doens't have a hypothesis, isn't disprovable, isn't testable, as them to match evolution to those conditions and they'll probably have a hard time


P.S. If you have any neat arguements against evolution, don't forget to submit them in the thread labeled Debating in the Hobbies section

[falklands]

Wow, you're happy today...

[Teckor]

falklands said:

Wow, you're happy today...

I'm almost always happy when I'm throwing problems about evolution around Just the thought cheers me up

[falklands]

Another thing you mentioned in the "hobbies" section was that beneficial mutations never really happen. That is a point Frank Peretti makes in his novel Monster. I remember some of what he said in it (excuse any inaccuracies). Take away the effect that spurred the mutation, and you are left with a being that is unable to cope with the rest of nature. Scientists say that our DNA is 98 percent chimpanzee, but the human genome contains more than 3 billion base pairs. To get from a chimpanzee's DNA to our DNA would require 60 or so million beneficial mutations that have no effect on our standing in nature, all within a supposed time span of 4 million years. Hm.

[Teckor]

falklands said:

Another thing you mentioned in the "hobbies" section was that beneficial mutations never really happen. That is a point Frank Peretti makes in his novel Monster. I remember some of what he said in it (excuse any inaccuracies). Take away the effect that spurred the mutation, and you are left with a being that is unable to cope with the rest of nature. Scientists say that our DNA is 98 percent chimpanzee, but the human genome contains more than 3 billion base pairs. To get from a chimpanzee's DNA to our DNA would require 60 or so million beneficial mutations that have no effect on our standing in nature, all within a supposed time span of 4 million years. Hm.

Mmmm. Interesting. Or how about the fact that with 3 billion base pairs there are possiblely a google of possibilities (yes, google is also a number). Seriously, I read "Refuting Evolution 2" by Jonathan Safariti and he stated that with 1000 base pairs, there is approximately 10^106 (around there) of different possibilities O.O really makes it "mathematically possible, but improbable".