The Evolution Myth

John,

It's not good to argue merely for the sake of it. I accept the possibility that a million icebergs may arrive in Times Square, New York or in Trafalgar Square in London by tomorrow morning. Or any number of possibilities. But I do not believe this will happen because there is no evidence of it occuring. Since you are saying species extinction has already happened, many times, isn't the onus on you yourself to present a shred of evidence to us it has actually occurred ? Ever ?

Common sense says we cannot prove a negative. Again, the onus is on you to prove species extinction HAS happened. It's not on others to prove it has not. Isn't that true ? Can you not agree this IS the sensible approach ?

Thirdly, you already accept species ARE being defined subjectively and always have been, by none other than the teachers of evolution theory. Which is precisely the problem. Why not see the crucial importance of this fact and see where it leads you ?

You write -

'You must instead explain how, if I were to bring you two organisms, you would decide whether they belonged to the same or different species'

Well !! How simple ! We decide whether two organisms are of the same or different species first by their ability/inability to breed with other other members of the genus to which they belong. Genetics already shows us whether they are of the same genus. Isn't that true ?

Finally, it's definitely not my view no adequate definition of the species exists. The opposite is true. A definition was suggested here on species only yesterday.

A species is defined as a living organism which can be shown to occupy a fixed, permanent and unique position within the genus of which it is a member.

The failure to define species with accuracy is that of evolutionists themselves as has been proved over and over here on this thread. They (evolutionists) are the ones who are highly subjective on species and who have confused themselves on this basic and fundamental issue. Read the statements of Darwin on species definition to see this fact proved. Shall I post them here again ?


Regards

Robert
 
Last edited:

jhnbrbr

New member
Robert

You're right - it isn't good to argue merely for the sake of it, but nor is it good to let error go unchallenged! I've done my utmost to convince you that your position on extinction is not logical, but I don't seem to be making much headway! We shall have to agree to differ, as this must be my last post for a while as I must do some real work to avoid financial extinction. However, I shall allow myself the luxury of firing a few parting shots before I go ...

(i) You are mixing up possibility and probability. It is possible but highly improbable that a million icebergs will arrive in Times Square. It is both possible and probable that species have become extinct in the past. To the vast majority of people, both specialist and non-specialist, it is more than probable, it is a demonstrable fact.

(ii) Your method for identifying species is not universal, since some organisms only reproduce asexually.

(iii) You claim that modern genetics discredits evolutionary theory, but in the New Scientist article you referred to in which various experts on molecular genetics express their opinion, the debate is only about the precise patterns in which genetic information has been distributed. There is no suggestion that evolution itself is discredited, nor that the history of life on earth was not characterised by constant change.

(Andrew - I think you will find that you need to refer to the latin name, rather than the common name, to determine the species!)

I must go. Goodbye.:wave:
 
Robert

You're right - it isn't good to argue merely for the sake of it, but nor is it good to let error go unchallenged! I've done my utmost to convince you that your position on extinction is not logical, but I don't seem to be making much headway! We shall have to agree to differ, as this must be my last post for a while as I must do some real work to avoid financial extinction. However, I shall allow myself the luxury of firing a few parting shots before I go ...

(i) You are mixing up possibility and probability. It is possible but highly improbable that a million icebergs will arrive in Times Square. It is both possible and probable that species have become extinct in the past. To the vast majority of people, both specialist and non-specialist, it is more than probable, it is a demonstrable fact.

(ii) Your method for identifying species is not universal, since some organisms only reproduce asexually.

(iii) You claim that modern genetics discredits evolutionary theory, but in the New Scientist article you referred to in which various experts on molecular genetics express their opinion, the debate is only about the precise patterns in which genetic information has been distributed. There is no suggestion that evolution itself is discredited, nor that the history of life on earth was not characterised by constant change.

(Andrew - I think you will find that you need to refer to the latin name, rather than the common name, to determine the species!)

I must go. Goodbye.:wave:

Well, thank you John. Since your letter is in 3 parts so is my reply. In Part 1 you write on species extinction -

It is both possible and probable that species have become extinct in the past. To the vast majority of people, both specialist and non-specialist, it is more than probable, it is a demonstrable fact.

Great. Can you please demonstrate this fact to us ? With some evidence able to survive cross-examination ? We are still waiting and I note that, so far, none has been presented so far. Especially since you say it is 'more than probable'.

In Part 2 you write -

Your method for identifying species is not universal, since some organisms only reproduce asexually.

It is true some species only reproduce asexually. But in such a case we already know they are species. Don't we ? And we already know they are members of a genus. Unless, of course, you think differently ?

In Part 3 you describe the contents of the article in 'New Scientist'. Yes, it clearly illustrates the dogma that 'evolution must have happened, therefore we are still looking for the mechanism by which it happened'. If this does not reveal the circular argument of 'evolution science' what does ?

How about questioning the assumption on which the entire theory itself is based ? Seeing, after all, the actual evidence we have of species is that their existence is and always was regulated by none other than the laws of heredity. And seeing that, to date, Darwinism has spectacularly failed to prove its case, over and over again.

We've surely reached a point where one must ask, 'Can evolutionists think beyond their own dogmas to arrive at an understanding that is truly consistent with the discoveries of science' ? The evidence of the past century and more is one of constant and embarrasing retreat from their own dogmas. Punctuated by baseless and often fraudulent claims.

Let's start with species. Which side is being objective and which is not on them as real things in living nature? Which side is accepting the discoveries of science on them instead of imposing on the subject assumptions for which there is no evidence and for which there never has been ?

I think you have an answer. Frankly, it's the 'RIRO' syndrome - 'Rubbish In, Rubbish Out'. But that is not honest. And this lack of academic integrity is a striking characteristic of 'evolution science'.

It doesn't matter how long it takes for evolutionary geneticists and zoologists, botanists and other researchers to finally realise and appreciate the phenomenal stability and permanence of all species in nature and for bankrupt and uselessly subjective definitions on species to be consigned to the dustbin of failed ideas. Nor did it matter to Mendel that his discoveries of fundamental laws were shameful suppressed and ignored for decades, by evolutionists themselves, worldwide. The catastrophic collapse of Darwinism has happened in a steady series of failures and is now a plain fact. Admitted even by pro-evolutionary scientific journals.

Let's move on from such a disastrous record. Let's start with an accurate and verifiable definition of species - something resisted at every step by evolutionists themselves. And by nobody else.

Regards

Robert
 
Last edited:

sunwaiter

New member
hello gentlemen!

well, it seems that another courageous one is facing the truth! kidding. hang on, jhnbrbr, if you like to bang your head.

i wanted to let you all know that i didn't feel bad at all when i quit this thread some days ago or bitter either in any way. just a little scared. despite the sometimes quite condescending notes, i really have learned many things. i agree that when one has been interested and studying in a certain field, he likes to share his knowledge, as solid as it can be, with anyone who wants to get started with it. sometimes i myself have the greatest difficulties not to "lecture" youngest people anout music or any other matter of which i'm fond.

Corno: if i had to go back to school, which one would you suggest i choose? any french university? no, they will tell me lies only. maybe i'll have to buy a ticket for the undoubtedly beautiful Kansas State. i'm only half-kidding here because i'm very attracted by the united states, as a great country to visit.


what follows is a little recapitulating text written by a clearly "anti-creationist" (not me, then).
i find it is a good sumup, though it won't give you all the answers and facts you are fond of. at least, some concepts are explained and detailed. this one guy is too categoric for my taste but i nevertheless and generally agree with what he says.

"People who think creationism is true because that's what the Bible says.
Before I go any further I would like to ask the reader to consider the following questions:
Do you believe that the earth is flat? ( Daniel 4:7-8 )
Do you believe that the sun and all of the other planets and stars orbit the Earth? ( Psalms. 19:1-6; Joshua 10:12-14 )
Do you support slavery? ( Exodus 21:7 and Leviticus 25:44)
Do you kill people who eat shellfish? ( Leviticus 11:10)
Do you kill people who work on Sunday? ( Exodus 35:2)
Do you stone your children to death if they disobey you? ( Deuteronomy 21:18-21 )
If you answered “no” to any of these questions, then it is clear that you do not believe in everything the Bible has to say. You are admitting that the Bible can be wrong. If the Bible can be wrong about so many things, then how do you know that the Bible isn't wrong about creationism?
The Bible was written by MEN thousands of years ago in a time where knowledge and society were completely different from these of today. It is only logical that as our knowledge of science has improved, scientific beliefs once held as true are disproved. Any attempts to support creationism using Biblical quotes are pure hypocrisy.
If one accepts that the Bible is wrong in some instances, then it is illogical and hypocritical for one to claim that it cannot be wrong in other areas.
People who don't know science
Arguments from people who don't know science often attack evolution using one of the following statements:
“But it's just a theory …”
“It cannot be proven …”
“It requires just as much faith as religion …”
“Evolution is a religion …”
The first two arguments reflect a lack of knowledge of basic scientific terms. The non-scientific definition of the term ‘theory' is that of an unproven, untested idea. In science, this is known as a hypothesis. Only when the hypothesis has been supported by numerous, repeatable and peer-reviewed experiments can it be called a Theory. The argument, “It's just a theory”, if accepted against evolution, could be accepted in claiming that the Theory of Gravitation, the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Electromagnetic Waves, the Theory of Limits and the Germ Theory of Disease are all also false.
Anyone using this argument is either ignorant of or deliberately misusing scientific terms.
The claim that “It can't be proven” also reflects a lack of knowledge in basic scientific principles. There are only two areas of knowledge where a definite “proof” is attainable. Those areas are Mathematics and Logic. Evolution is neither a mathematical concept nor is it a product of strict symbolic logic. Therefore it isn't possible to “prove” evolution; however, the same applies to all other areas of science. No science can ever be proven. Just because it has not been proven doesn't mean that there is a lack of supporting evidence. As I will discuss below, countless experiments executed and repeated worldwide have provided much supporting evidence to the hypotheses made by evolution. Evolution can even be seen in action through short term experiments (with fruit flies), short term observations (the peppered moth), long term observations (analogous structures, the biochemistry link between humans and primates) and direct digital simulation (Avida and other evolutionary algorithms).
Once again, the claim that “Evolution can't be proved” can only be supported by those ignorant of or deliberately misusing scientific terms.
The last two arguments are ridiculous in both their inspiration and execution. Their idea is that in order to believe in evolution you also need faith, so evolution is similar in its support to creationism. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Remember that Creationism has no evidence whatsoever, and relies exclusively on faith. In contrast the theory of evolution was based strictly on observed evidence. There is no aspect of evolution that is not supported extensively by scientific observation. The basic premise of all science is that only ideas which are supported by fact, rather than faith, can be considered a theory.
Any attempt to claim that faith is required to accept evolution is a desperate attempt to discredit evolution by those without the most cursory knowledge of the scientific method.
People who don't know evolution
There is a myriad of arguments against evolution that are based on a fallacious understanding of what the Theory of Evolution is or false scientific knowledge. I will not attempt to summarize them all here but will examine them one by one.
Argument 1:
Because we haven't found any transitional fossils (“missing-links” to the uninformed) the Theory of Evolution is wrong.
This argument is wrong in two separate ways. First is the claim that no transitional fossils have been found. In fact, 21 cases of transitional fossils have been found. Any individual pushing this sort of “argument” is conveniently ignoring an overwhelming body of scientific evidence. Secondly the deduction that the entire Theory of Evolution is based on the finding of missing-link fossils is one based on an incredulous lack of knowledge about paleontology and the theory of evolution. According to the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution, change is not gradual. Rather, it happens in bursts, with entire new species forming in time period of perhaps 100 generations. Now the fossil record is clearly incomplete; only 7 tyrannosaurus rex skeletons have been found, and this species existed for approximately 20 million years. Therefore it is only logical that there are many transitional species that didn't exist long enough to form fossils. In fact the presence of the transitional fossils that we have found indicates that transitional species are actually extremely common.
Argument 2:
Microevolution is different from macroevolution
This is the standard type of argument made after dogma has been ripped to shreds by both logic and scientific evidence. In effect, this argument attempts to draw a mysterious line between “micro” and “macro” evolution, claiming that microevolution is true but rejecting macroevolution. This argument is a classic example of the ad hoc fallacy where an argument is added in order to explain obvious mistakes in an original argument. In this case the original argument is that evolution doesn't happen at all. As it became painfully obvious that evolution does happen, this ad-hoc explanation was added. Even so, this ad-hoc argument still fails the test of logic and science.
If one uses the biological term describing macroevolution then this argument is patently false. Biologists define macroevolution as being a synonym with speciation, that is, the evolution of a new species. Speciation has been documented hundreds of times in the past 100 years. If a single century of scientific observation can show hundreds of new species evolving then it is absurd to claim that the diversity of life we see today cannot be the product of billions of years of evolution.
In order to avoid the obvious error highlighted above creationists have came up with their own definition of the word macroevolution. This definition works out to be evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. Even if the clear ad-hoc nature of this argument is ignored, there is still a clear logical reason why massive evolutionary changes have yet to be observed: Evolution takes time. It makes no sense to expect dramatic changes (creation of entirely new orders of species) in a few hundred years of modern scientific observation. But it makes perfect sense to take the current evidence and conclude that large scale changes have happened in the past. Small changes have been observed, and there is absolutely no reason, logical or scientific, why small changes accmulated over time cannot become large changes. Secondly, analysis of the fossil record, physiology, biochemistry and DNA all point to the same nested tree hierarchy of species that is exactly as evolution predicts.
This list could get a lot longer, but there really is no point to pointing out the same errors in logic and scientific evidence again and again. Any more arguments for creationism or against evolution that are emailed to me will be posted, along with my response.
People who think creationism is science
Ever since the 1960's, there has been a surge in support for so called “creation science” or “intelligent design theory”. I will attack these mockeries of science in two manners. First I will discuss the general validity of calling any form of creationism as science. Then I will examine particular claims made by proponents of both ideas.
For those who believe that creation science or intelligence design theory is not just religion given a false coating of science, I ask you to consider the following list of facts:
• No scientific evidence for creation science or intelligent design theory has ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
• All “creation-scientists” happen be Christian
• All organizations supporting creation-science are Christian organizations
• Those same organizations force all of their members to sign pledges that say they will believe in Biblical creationism even if the evidence is against them.
So, creation-science has never had a scientific article published and all “creation-scientists” happen to be Christians working for Christian organizations. It doesn't take a great mind to conclude that creation-science is really no science at all. Instead it is a covert attempt to hide religious beliefs as science. Further more creationism cannot possibly be considered a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of observed occurances through a process using natural laws that can make positive predictions supported by evidence. Creationism does not explain using natural laws, nor does it make any positive predictions. Therefore it cannot be considered a scientific theory.
Although it is quite clear that the whole idea of “Creation-Science” is ridiculous I will examine several of their arguments for creationism and against evolution in detail:
Argument:
“Humans are fundamentally different from other animals”
Again, this argument is wrong in multiple ways. I will look at the claim of human “uniqueness” in three different ways; the descent from apes, the mental capacity of humans and the morality aspect.
Claim 1
It is ridiculous to believe that humans, who are so different from other animals could have descended from a common animal ancestor.
Not only is this argument a text-book example of the argument from incredulity fallacy it is also entirely incorrect. Humans share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees and 98.4% of our DNA with gorillas. The entire difference in genetic code is accounted for by the functional parts of our DNA. The non-functional pairs of our DNA segments are exactly the same. The only way that this similarity could exist is if all three species share a common ancestor.
Claim 2:
Humans are the only species capable of language, tool-using, self-awareness, creativity, etc.
There is only one word that describes this claim:
WRONG
I'll go through each of the components of the claim individually and point out the error:
Language: chimpanzees and gorillas are both capable of learning the English language. However, their vocal ability is limited and so they communicate through either sign-language or the arrangement of letters and words on a computer screen or magnetic board. However they demonstrate full understanding of grammar and composition and even teach language to their children.
Tool-using: In the wild, chimpanzees use a complicated technique involving shaped twigs to catch termites. This behavior is not instinctive, and is in fact taught by parents to children in the wild. Secondly, chimpanzees have been taught to construct stone tools and use them to cut ropes.
Self-awareness: All language using primates are self-aware and can identify themselves in photographs and categorize themselves separately from all others of the same species.
Creativity: Chimpanzees, gorillas and elephants all show clear elements of creativity through their paintings. In particular, gorillas paint differently based on their mood and are capable of painting landscapes that are products of their imaginations.
Claim 3:
Humans are the only species on Earth capable of morality.
Again this claim completely ignores a wide body of scientific evidence. There is much evidence to show that other species, especially primates do in fact have morality. In one experiment chimps were given a task, then rewarded with a cucumber slice. However, if they witnessed another chimp doing the same task but getting a grape instead (a better treat) they would refuse the cucumber slice and even throw the cucumber at the researchers. In another experiment a group of young chimps held up the feeding of the whole pack of chimps. The next day, that group was attacked by the rest of the pack, in apparent retribution. Morality is a trait that is evolutionarily advantageous for any social animal, because it allows members of a group to co-operate more effectively. Therefore it is only logical that such morality has evolved over time in a variety of species.
Argument:
The odds of life forming randomly are 1 in 10^(50,000) . Based on this number, a Creator must be involved.
In these types of calculations there are often elementary errors. Some common ones are:
• Assuming that the simplest life today (bacteria) are identical to the very first life. This is ridiculous, bacteria today are products of billions of years of evolution. A similar analogy would be examining a modern day fighter jet, claiming that its too complicated to be designed all at one time and then claiming that its miraculous appearance could only be attributed to divine intervention.
• Assuming that the current form of life is the only form of life. An example of this sort of calculation is someone claims that to form a 20 amino-acid protein the odds of forming it are one in 20^20 . While the odds of forming a particular sequence are in fact 1 in 20^20, this has no relation at all to the odds of life forming. There are many different arrangements of amino acids that would result in a functional protein.
Conclusion
Creationism is not science. It is not supported by evidence. It is not supported by logic.
Evolution is the product of the scientific process that has ushered in our current age of information and discovery. Evolution is supported by the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence. Evolution is the logical outcome of open-minded thinking.
People who insist on supporting creationism despite all the evidence against it are those who are left blind and ignorant by their religious beliefs.
I'd love to hear any arguments for or against evolution and/or creationism. ([email protected])


PEACE, take care, whatever you think.
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Aloha sunwaiter,

Since you live in Paris I doubt that you would thrive in Kansas. If you're serious about studying a Life Science such as Biology, Microbiology, Genetics or another suitable discipline in a very cosmopolitain yet beautiful setting, I would heartily recommend this University in the following link:

http://www.washington.edu/discovery/about.html

If you can matriculate into the Seattle campus of this University you would undoubtedly thrive very well. Their Music Department is one of the better in the Nation. Of course, there are other excellent Schools like University of Minnesota and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore but the gentler weather climate in Seattle might be more appealing to you.

Yes, they do get alot of rain in Seattle. The University of Texas in Austin is a premier research School. Then of course there are the Ivy Leagues like Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown and others.

Choices, choices, choices...Oh which one to pick?! Take some time to read up on some that I have mentioned. I'm sure there are chat forums where you can read and dialogue with graduates who share about their experiences at different Universities.

What? You couldn't see yourself studying at the Sorbonne or how about the University in Grenoble?

Cheerio,

CD :):):)
 

sunwaiter

New member
so you're really willing to save me from the evilutionist propanganda... because france is lost already! no matter which university we're talking about. you would talk about a "consensus" on genetics, despite all the research that is currently made.

this very university for which i work ( versailles-saint-quentin) provides genetics lessons and research, and the man who's in charge of the genetics sector is the one i quoted earlier, Jean Louis Serre.

and unfortunately plane tickets are way too expensive. discovering the truth has a cost. and i also have to try to keep my job here... but, yeah, there is internet, i'm already using it. thanks for the informations. you sure know what i was heading to when i asked what university to choose. maybe i will be an immatriculated student when i'm an old man.

i know it is wise to look elsewhere to find good counterpoints to what we already have, and i will keep my eyes, ears and mind open wide, but sometimes we have to use what Robert once called "common sense".
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Aloha sunwaiter,

If you were to matriculate as a foreign student at an American University, you can get a job on campus and a dorm room, you can get scholarships and grants. There are foreign students from probably even more humble circumstances than you who are studying at American Universities. Most American Universities fall all over themselves to provide educational and financial incentives to foreign students who see themselves as economically blocked from attending. The Universities dictum: no economic hardship is too difficult to accomodate.

Cheerio,

CD :):):)

Ps: To seek and ask about educational and tuition assistance at an American University is free - you'll be overwhelmingly surprised at the opportunities available.

Of course, you can also study at the University in St. Petersburg or in Moscow. They have excellent programs - Many students arrive from the poorer parts of Africa to avail themselves of the educational opportunities.
 
Last edited:

Andrew Roussak

New member
Dear Sunwaiter,

I am glad to see you here once again.

I was also happy to notice this:

what follows is a little recapitulating text written by a clearly "anti-creationist" (not me, then).

because I would hate it , to know that you could be so narrow minded as the "anti-creationist" you have quoted. I would be, still , very interested to know, which / how much of his views do you share. One does not necessary need to copy / paste literally everything which is out there in Internet.

I would also advice you to read the following - the link was posted just today by Robert, I guess you did not notice it:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...fe.html?page=1

It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CREATIONISM - it is only the state of affairs of ET for today, 23/01/2009. Please read and understand what does it mean. If the evolution is not being seen as a tree ( as for today ) , then , obviously , the entire trend upwards is not being supported BY THE OFFICIAL ET anymore, as far as I can understand it. It looks like many want-to-be-evolutionists are still defending the bastion, long abandoned by the leading scientists themselves.

I have from the very beggining said - my point is not that everything what ID says should be definitely right. My point is, the official ET doctrine is wrong. I have once posted here the link to the theory of the Mitochondrial Eve - it is an evolutionary theory, not creational. But it shows, how close do the evolutionists come sometimes to the creationists' views, even without acknowledging it.

Well, I have of course no idea, which points of the quotated "anti-creationist" do you , personally, support - I hope, at least, not all of them.

Still I want to comment some actually funny episodes.

So, creation-science has never had a scientific article published and all “creation-scientists” happen to be Christians working for Christian organizations.

I hope this "anti-evolutionist" lives in Europe ( or in US ) , so he has to know at least the basics of the European history. The science itself was born in medieval closters. All somewhat important European Universities were founded and sponsored by Church. Up to the Darwin's era, the science was predominantly Christian ( go Wikipedia , check out the bios of Newton, Leibniz, Dekart, Galileo etc. ). The freedom of speech itself is a virtue of the European Christian culture. Imagine a discussion like this one in a Soviet Union or in Hitlers' Germany. Imagine the buses with "There is possibly no God.." on the streets of Cairo or Abu-Dhabi. If you don't have any respect for this culture, please at least acknowledge the facts.
• All “creation-scientists” happen be Christian
• All organizations supporting creation-science are Christian organizations

Thís is a damn deep observation. Both thumbs up!! If these people were born and grown up in USA and Europe, which confession should they have then? Should they be buddhists? What about the evolutionist scientists, who are they? Where do they - to their most part - come from?

Hey!! Maybe this guy is simply an undercover Al-Kaeda agent?

First is the claim that no transitional fossils have been found. In fact, 21 cases of transitional fossils have been found.

I would like to have a couple of names posted here. If one of these 21 fossils is called "Archaeopterix", then you should speak about 20, not 21. Btw - 21 is not pretty much, concerning there are about 2 mln species out there?
• Assuming that the simplest life today (bacteria) are identical to the very first life. This is ridiculous, bacteria today are products of billions of years of evolution. A similar analogy would be examining a modern day fighter jet, claiming that its too complicated to be designed all at one time and then claiming that its miraculous appearance could only be attributed to divine intervention.

I have read that exactly the fossils of bacteria look pretty identical to the bacteria being observed now. But, the poster supposes the "proto-bacteria" was a pretty simple thing - back to the spoon of jelly ( Haeckel )? Why had the Miller-Urey-53 experiment failed then? If the "proto-bacteria" was obviously that simple, what was the need for the PANSPERMIA and Life Law theory ?
For the jet-analogy ( FUNNY!!!!!!! FUNNY!!!!! ) - that is, a modern fighter jet can create itself through a multi-step process without any participation of intellect ( OMG, Sunwaiter, WHERE ON EARTH HAVE YOU FOUND HIM????? ):))))?

Again, this argument is wrong in multiple ways. I will look at the claim of human “uniqueness” in three different ways; the descent from apes, the mental capacity of humans and the morality aspect.

People who say that the humans are nothing more than advanced apes do always make me laugh!:) There are lots of remarkable stuff in this post I simply don't want to comment. Still, this one:


Language: chimpanzees and gorillas are both capable of learning the English language. However, their vocal ability is limited and so they communicate through either sign-language or the arrangement of letters and words on a computer screen or magnetic board. However they demonstrate full understanding of grammar and composition and even teach language to their children.

I can post a quotation from A Blind Watchmaker where Dawkins claims the science will never be able to explain the mystery of a human language. No matter what the poster may think of Dawkins - I believe, a professor of biology can be somewhat responsible for his own words, especially concerning the position he takes among the evolutionists.

Btw - Sunwaiter, a small kiddy question for you, please don't GOOGLE!! Try to answer yourself, I am interested in your opinion. Why do we people wear clothes? The totally naked human (on the street, not in the bathroom ) looks for us the same abnormal as the dog wearing jacket. WHY??? What would you say? :)

Microevolution is different from macroevolution

Exactly. He still has the moments of enlightment sometimes.

According to the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution, change is not gradual. Rather, it happens in bursts, with entire new species forming in time period of perhaps 100 generations

The theory of punctuated equilibrium was brought out to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, and the abscence of the observable acts of evolution presently. This theory is being attacked by the "gradual" evolutionists like Dawkins no less than by the creationists. Which means there is no unity among the evolutionists also. Both gradual and punctual models do not provide the mechanism of evolution ( this is the question which Dawkins failed to answer on the video posted by Robert ).

Awww, feel myself tired....Sunwaiter, thanks for the interesting reading, hope you are being open-minded enough and critical not only to what Robert and your humble servant are saying:) Please don't forget to answer my question - why do we humans wear the clothes?

Best regards, have a great weekend!
Andrew:)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your long message Sunwaiter.

It must have taken some courage to take on the bible ! But it's a shame you do this without actually understanding what it teaches ! Why, you don't even know the difference between the Old and New Testaments, it seems !

You write -

If one accepts that the Bible is wrong in some instances, then it is illogical and hypocritical for one to claim that it cannot be wrong in other areas.

In reply -

I don't believe the bible is wrong in any way. Nor have you shown otherwise. But you clearly believe so, Sunwaiter. In fact you want us to believe you know more of the cosmos and of life's history than the Author of the Bible. The very Creator of the Universe. At least, that's what you want us to believe. Isn't it ?

You also say -

Any attempt to support creationism using Biblical quotes are pure hypocrisy.

In reply -

Any attempt to support evolution theory using Darwin's 'Evolution of Species' (1859) is not hypocrisy but amazing ignorance of the actual discoveries of modern science. Belief in creation is a product of faith. Haven't your heard this fact before ? The simple truth is the findings of modern science do not support 'evolution theory'. This has been repeatedly said to you all of your life. And it will be said to you all of the rest of your life also.

The simple truth is the vast majority of major discoveries made throughout the entire history of science (in virtually every single field) were made by men who DID believe in the accuracy and reliability of the bible. Isn't that fact important ? Time for you to realise 'evolution science' hasn't even survived its own absurdities. So much for your version of 'modern science'. Darwinism has collapsed.

But such is the state of your 'education' you say -

'No science can ever be proven'.

What !!!!!

OK Sunwaiter, let's see. It is scientifically proved the heart pumps blood around the body. Isn't it ? Please tell us if you disagree. Humans need oxygen, water and food to live. That's a proven fact too. I am also guilty of saying it's a scientific fact (proved by science) that fire burns hair. And that we cannot naturally breathe underwater. This too is an indisputable fact. Water consists of molecules of oxygen and hydrogen. This too is a plain and proven scientific fact. And it's a fact Charles Darwin knew less of species (let alone their history) than the average modern high school biology student. All these things are true and they have in common the fact they are all scientifically proved. Any comment ?

So where does that leave your bizzare idea that no science can be proved ?

I'll move quickly on from this display of your real lack of education to your statement that -

'All creation scientists happen to be Christian'.

No. Not so. Albert Einstein believed in creation also. He was not a Christian. But yes, the greatest scientists of the past centuries have been Christians. Let's name a few. Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, Kepler, well, the list is virtually endless. Please give names of major scientists over the past 500 years or so who didn't believe in creation ? Just a few. Any suggestions ? You are frankly showing a real lack of education in saying such things. 'Evolution science', however, is nothing but a game for delinquent grown ups and should never be confused with science. It's leading exponents are sponsoring atheist campaigns and can't answer simple questions on their own theory. Why, even its own journals are openly admitting its failure.

But why argue with something already as clear as daylight ?

Of course I respect your right to believe as you please. You can believe things a Christian person laughs at because they learned them also at kindergarten and have learned better as they became adults. But if you ever wish to make a real contribution in science may I suggest you first learn to humble yourself to truths greater even than your own understanding. For, as Shakespeare (and many others) have said -

'There are more things in heaven and in earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy'.

Regards

Robert
 
Last edited:

Andrew Roussak

New member
Thanks for your long message Sunwaiter.

It must have taken some courage to take on the bible ! But it's a shame you do this without actually understanding what it teaches ! Why, you don't even know the difference between the Old and New Testaments, it seems !

Good UK evening Robert!!!

It seems we have posted our answers simultaneously!

I want only to draw you attention to the very beginning of the post of Sunwaiter - the whole rant is not of him ( thanks God!! ) - it is a quotation of a guy who had obviously missed something in his primary school. Hope Sunwaiter therefore does not take all our remarks personally...

Regards, have a great weekend!
Andrew:)
 
Last edited:

sunwaiter

New member
if learning the bible's content is what you meant, well, he may have missed something.

i noticed some points where he went a little too short, becaus that was his purpose, but i maintain that on the overall, i must recognize i agree with him. but nobody's perfect.

thx for your answers
 

Andrew Roussak

New member
Hi Andrew,

So, you are sticking with Robert on this one? Can you not both see how inconsistent your position is? To agree that at this particular moment in time a number of species do face a threat of extinction, but not to accept that in the long history of life on earth a significant number of other species must actually have succumbed to the threat. You both complain about the lack of a precise definition for "species", but isn't the truth of the matter that you rely heavily on this alleged lack of a definition? It is very convenient for you. Whatever example I may give you of an extinct creature -passenger pigeon, dodo, mammoth, brontosaurus - you will simply say "Ah yes, but enough research would show that it wasn't actually a species."

Hi John,

I hope your actual job had saved you from the financial extinction and you will be still able to visit!

I want to answer this post of yours , though first and foremost I have to admit - I am nothing more than an interested amateur in zoology, and my palaeontological knowledge is woeful:) So, if you want to discuss this matter ( species ) in a certain depth - I would better give place to Robert.:cry:

Still, using my common sense, I would say that really many cases of extinction of species must be, in fact, extinctions of populations or variations. To illustrate it on your examples:

PASSENGER PIGEON - I really think it was a variation of species pigeon ( unless you will say, that doberman and retriever are two different species );

DODO - I simply don't know;

MAMMOTH - well, smth. tells me mammoth must be a close relative of elephant, right? So, what the genetics say - were they interbreedable with each other or not ? If yes, then mammoth was a variation as well. Of course mammoth did look pretty different from elephant - but, doberman and labrador are also not very similar. BTW, what is believed to be the reason for extinction of mammoth ( I really have no idea - this is only to show my ignorance once again!! ) ?

DINOSAURS - I believe this can be your case. I guess Robert would say they were not - I admit I simply have no knowledge here to say something more or less distinct. The dinosaurs are thought to be made extinct due to some kind of natural disaster - creationists would say , flood, evolutionists would say - a meteorit ( followed by the flood:)) . Well, if a nuclear war can wipe away the species, why the natural disaster cannot? The things like T-Rex must be pretty heavy and slow - so they have lived likely in the lowlands and could not escape the flood, or whatever it was. But , that said - such kinds of disasters do not obviously happen everyday.

Hope you will evaluate my willingness to give you a honest answer - you see, I really try to do my best!

Regards and financial success to ya,
Andrew:)
 
Last edited:

sunwaiter

New member
So, if you have an evidence of species which were already definitively and finally made "extinct - fine, as mentioned, I don't see why this must be impossible. But I myself don't have any examples."

the thylacine. i mentioned it twice or more.

"Btw - Sunwaiter, a small kiddy question for you, please don't GOOGLE!! Try to answer yourself, I am interested in your opinion. Why do we people wear clothes? The totally naked human (on the street, not in the bathroom ) looks for us the same abnormal as the dog wearing jacket. WHY??? What would you say? :)"

why do birds build nests?

Robert, don't take it the wrong way but my posting someone else's text does not mean, as i stressed, that i can't sort what i totally agree with and the more questionable points.

"Any attempt to support evolution theory using Darwin's 'Evolution of Species' (1859) is not hypocrisy but amazing ignorance of the actual discoveries of modern science. Belief in creation is a product of faith. Haven't your heard this fact before ? The simple truth is the findings of modern science do not support 'evolution theory'. This has been repeatedly said to you all of your life. And it will be said to you all of the rest of your life also."

i don't think so. it is not faith, it is the will to know. like you said, "am i really willing to learn"? or something like this. i think i am, when i don't deal with people too hardheaded, at least not more than me.

1859--->2009. once again, do you really think darwin had to know everything about life right away? what people called "neo-darwinism" was a logical sequel to his work. as i mentioned here already, yes, he ignored many things, and science always go forward. always. it's never a still painting. but what is interesting in his ideas is that it redefined our way of seeing life! and not necessarily for the worst. he was at the start of something new and i confess of believing in this view today, partly because / thanks of you and other ID believers i 've met, who sometimes seem to show some "bad faith", particularly when some simple answers to seemingly imperious questions are given, and soon forgotten, if ever read.


a certain way of presenting things
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=2G-VlWanXRg&feature=PlayList&p=5A2B501CFB17591E&index=0&playnext=1

corno: "Aloha sunwaiter,

If you were to matriculate as a foreign student at an American University, you can get a job on campus and a dorm room, you can get scholarships and grants. There are foreign students from probably even more humble circumstances than you who are studying at American Universities. Most American Universities fall all over themselves to provide educational and financial incentives to foreign students who see themselves as economically blocked from attending. The Universities dictum: no economic hardship is too difficult to accomodate.

Cheerio,"

did you miss my point or are you even funnier than me? i meant: french universities are really respectable in all regards. i don't need to go look for american ones, even if i know there are very good ones in the US, with, by the way, incredible libraries with beautiful collections.

i know it's not constructive at all, but i feel the need to laugh, more and more. after all, i'm not the one to post funny videos here.

a certain way of explaining things
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yB...iculous-creationists/&feature=player_embedded

another even funnier way of doing it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG...iculous-creationists/&feature=player_embedded

well, i know, these people are not very serious, but why not enjoying such comic acts? it has already been said that ID and ET supporters had to endure this kind of counter-productive things.


the man below looks fashionable but he really hasn't followed the evolutionist "trend". he is a very scary character. Andrew, yes, the guy i quote was wrong, there are also muslim fundamentalists who support ID propaganda. i use the word for its technical value and meaning, as i would have said coca cola propaganda, football propaganda or evolutionist propaganda. the name is Adnan Oktar alias Harun Yahya . he's got money. big money. lots of books he sells. in france we can find them.

Adnan_Oktar_Agustos2007_02.jpg


d'(_!!! it's alrady 02:04 in the morning!

will i be back here? i don't know of course. but Corno always welcomes newcomers on this forum saying it is very addictive. true!
 
Last edited:

Andrew Roussak

New member
So, if you have an evidence of species which were already definitively and finally made "extinct - fine, as mentioned, I don't see why this must be impossible. But I myself don't have any examples."

the thylacine. i mentioned it twice or more.

"Btw - Sunwaiter, a small kiddy question for you, please don't GOOGLE!! Try to answer yourself, I am interested in your opinion. Why do we people wear clothes? The totally naked human (on the street, not in the bathroom ) looks for us the same abnormal as the dog wearing jacket. WHY??? What would you say? :)"

why do birds build nests?

Good morning, Sunwaiter !

For the extinct species - I mean exactly what I say - I have no examples.
I don't stick to the point of view that the species can not be made extinct - man can fire rockets to the Mars, man can build super computers. Which means man can make the species extinct as well. If you say - thylacine - fine, but you may want to make sure that it was exactly - species, not variety, not a certain population. Are you sure about it?

For my question -

"Btw - Sunwaiter, a small kiddy question for you, please don't GOOGLE!! Try to answer yourself, I am interested in your opinion. Why do we people wear clothes? The totally naked human (on the street, not in the bathroom ) looks for us the same abnormal as the dog wearing jacket. WHY??? What would you say? :)"

why do birds build nests?

If this is your way to answer the questions, Sunwaiter, I am afraid this post of me can be the last one, at least the last one in a discussion with you. Please care to show a little bit respect to your opponent. How do you see wearing of clothes can be similar to building nests? Or are you saying herewith the question itself is stupid?

Cheers
Andrew
 
Last edited:
Yes Sunwaiter,

A sense of humour is always a good thing. Why, I'd be an evolutionist myself except for the fact (for which I am really happy) there came a point in my life where I realised, honestly, it (the 'theory') has really done nothing, absolutely nothing, for mankind or for academic honesty. And yet it postures as being a product of science. It's dressed up to impress as 'modern' everywhere and whenever the latest version is exposed as yet another fraud you can be sure another will soon be along, like a taxi.

Well, I don't want to be too severe, especially since you're a student of these things !!

Consider this -

'TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS' AND A BLANK SHEET OF PAPER

Fossils of dinosaurs, wolly mammoths, Neanderthal Man, dodos and others such as archaeopteryx are presented in countless books and lectures as hard evidence for organic evolution. 'Here', says the evolutionist, 'is plain, compelling proof modern species have evolved from primitive lifeforms'. And gullible students accept this as if it must be true. But, in reply -

When you have time you might go to an article on the geological formations of the world and examine what is called there, 'The Geological Column'. This is the name given to the different strata that make up the Earth's crust and it recognises the order in which they were laid down. This orderly sequence of rocks (only some of them holding fossils) was brilliantly discovered in the 18th century. These are the layers of rocks (sedimentary and otherwise) which begin with the so-called Pre-Cambrian right up to our own time. Found only rarely intact anywhere at any one point in the world (because of erosion, subsidence etc etc) but globally valid all the same. You will find these layers of the Geological Column consist of 3 main sub-divisions -

Palaeozoic

Mesozoic

Cenozoic

The first of these, the Palaeozoic, were undoubtedly formed before those of the so-called Mesozoic. And those of the Mesozoic were undoubtedly formed before those of the Cenozoic. The evidence of this fact is overwhelming. These 3 great 'files' contain all the fossil bearing rocks in the entire world. And it's important to be aware of this. The evolutionist says, for example, dinosaurs were made extinct when the rocks of the late Cretaceous Period, i.e. a period when the last fossil bearing rocks of the Mesozoic era were being laid down. He even tells us this dinosaur extinction happened around 65 million years ago. And thus, according to him, right at the end of the Mesozoic era came the sudden 'extinction of the dinosaurs'. After this extinction came the start of a new geological era called the Cenozoic.

So these 3 great files or 'eras' contain lots of sub-files or 'Periods'. Names such as Cambrian, Cretaceous etc. are contained within them. And there's no doubt there IS a remarkably orderly sequence in these rock formations of the modern world.

But what people are not told in classes on evolution are vital facts. They learn only highly selective facts which appears to support evolution theory. Never the actual reality.

Here's a short example in these famous 'transitional' fossils. Let's list them again -

Dinosaurs

Dinosaur fossils, say the evolutionist, are found exclusively in rocks of the Mesozoic. Never later. But that is wrong. They are actually found in rocks of both the Mesozoic and also of the Cenozoic.

Wolly Mammoths

Everyone agrees Wolly Mammoths are fossils of the Cenozoic.

Neanderthal Man

Everyone agrees fossils of Neanderthal Man are fossils of the Cenozoic

Dodos

Everyone agrees fossils and other remains of Dodos come only from the Cenozoic period.

and finally -

Archaeopteryx

The evolutionist says fossils of 'the first bird', archaeopteryx come from rocks of the Mesozoic period.

//

Close examination of these rocks and these fossils are consistent with the view that all rocks and all fossils from Cambrian to Cretaceous inclusive. (i.e. covering the two eras of Palaeozoic and Mesozoic inclusive) were formed during a global flood and its abatement period.

And also -

Close examination of the rocks of the so-called 'Cenozoic' (which begins with the late Cretaceous) shows these rocks and these fossils come from a time shortly AFTER the global flood had ended.

Dinosaurs were NOT made extinct in the late Cretaceous. For, as said, the late Cretaceous is actually the start of a new era, the Cenozoic. Again, the evidence indicates dinosaurs existed TWICE in the history of life of earth. Once BEFORE the global flood and a second time in the late Cretaceous/early Tertiary period AFTER the global flood had ended.

It's important that you appreciate this fact. Important also that you are aware that the late Cretaceous/Early Cenozoic was a time AFTER a global flood when huge mountain forming episodes began worldwide. Forming such mountain chains as the Alps, the Himalayas, the Rockie Mountains, the Andes, etc. etc. All of these formed shortly AFTER the end of the global flood which had formed the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic. And so it is simply untrue the last dinosaurs were made extinct '65m' years ago. They, as mutant forms, existed quite recently. The discovery of fossil dinosaurs, fossil eggs, even dinosaur nests (at places such as 'Egg Mountain' in Montana USA) clearly prove dinosaurs lived as recently as the early Cenozoic. And it would be nonsense to say a global flood has occurred since those nests and eggs were made. These remains come from the great mountain forming episodes of the early Cenozoic.

Similarly, fossils of Archaeopteryx are today found in parts of Bavaria. But what you are not told is that these rocks (sandstones) were pushed up in the early Cenozoic. Not 65 million years ago. But AFTER the global flood had ended. These forms called 'Archaeopteryx' were NOT the 'first birds'. They were mutated forms of ordinary birds which lived at sea level during the early Cenozoic, though today these rocks and fossils are found well above sea level. Once again these remains are definitely not the 'earliest' birds.

The same is true of fossils from the high elevations of the mountain ranges already mentioned. The fossils found on the Himalayas, Alps, Rockie Mountains, Andes etc are all remarkably recent.

And what is the net result of all of this ? Well, simply, lowland areas of the world during the immediate time after the global flood were home to many animals and birds who were exposed to extremely hazardous environments associated with the onset of global mountain formation. Some of these forms were fossilised in sediments and raised in the great earth movements of those times.

But, side by side with these peculiar forms were populations of modern species living elsewhere. So the fossil record is NOT typical of life on earth, at any time. It, the fossil record of the Cenozoic, contains remains of certain lowland populations. These exposed to those lowland hazards.

Which brings us to Neanderthal Man. Here too the same is true. The fossils of Neanderthal Man came first from Neander Valley in Belgium - a lowland area. The same is true of virtually all 'evolutionary fossils of man'. These are remains of human populations caught in hazardous lowland areas at the time of great earth movements of the early Cenozoic.

So it's false to portray these remains as typical of all human populations of those times. For, at the time of Neanderthals were anatomically modern populations living elsewhere who were unaffected by these hazardous environments.

You see how only part of the facts is being told by the teachers of evolution ? The truth is anatomically modern populations lived at the very same time as their supposed 'evolutionary ancestors'.

The fossil record is of course a highly fragmentary and highly selective snapshot of life in situations where fossils could be rapidly formed. And these fossils were undoubtedly formed extremely rapidly. Once again not typical of more stable, upland areas.

So much for 'transitional fossils'. These are NOT proof of species evolving. They are the very opposite. They are proof of extreme environmental hazards that existed in those lowland areas associated with huge earth movements. None of them prove 'evolution'.

Regards

Robert
 
Last edited:

Andrew Roussak

New member
:lol:

Sorry, I just thought that was funny.

Carry on...

Dear Robin,

good Canadian morning to you!! Glad to hear from ya!

As I see, you are following this discussion anyway, so hope you will read this too. I have a pretty simple question for you personally -

- can you explain me the difference between minor and major keys in music? Why does minor triad sound "sad" and major triad sound "joyous" ( I am sure you know what I mean ) ?

Have an interest to discuss?

Best regards overseas,
Andrew:)
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Just some extra info about *Neandertal* - It is located 12 km east of Düsseldorf which is the capital of North Rhine-Westphalia. It is a valley of the river Düssel. The valley is named after Joachim Neander, a 17th century German pastor.

The area was once a site of limestone quarrying - It is also part of the area towns of Erkrath and Mettmann. In Mettmann, there is a museum which houses an exhibit of the extinct hominid subspecies Neanderthal.

Funny though, a long running dispute about Olduvai Gorge and Neandertal.
 
Top