The Great Evolution Myth
Part II (The Scientific Perspective)
by Tony Warren
No knowledgeable Christian denies this process. All Christians know and believe in the inherited changes in people and organisms. But evolution is the "ludicrous" theory that something can change by itself into a totally different thing, given enough time, simply because it of itself needs to, because of it's environment. The terms used most often are "Natural Selection" or that they "Adapted to their environment".
As a practical example, imagine there was a horse, and he couldn't reach the branches on some trees, or there wasn't enough food at ground level. The evolutionist theory is that given a million years or so, he'd adapt to his environment by growing a neck long enough to reach the branches (perhaps evolve into a giraffe), simply because of the need to adapt to the environment. But when you think seriously about it, you will find it both illogical and I dare say, unscientific! Because this idea assumes (the mother of all errors) that in all those years this horse is in continual "need" to reach higher branches. That is unlikely, improbable considering the world, as well as unscientific. This assumes this horse (or whatever creature) will continually "need" to change to adapt to the environment over those long periods of time. And keep in mind, this is an environment which they claim is itself continually changing. Again, this is not science, it's science fiction and illogical considering these facts. Will this horse-like creature continually over millions of years "need" to eat from higher branches in order grow a neck long enough to reach them? If he is surviving for millions of years without the long neck, why would he need to grow a long neck? Why would he need to adapt, he's obviously already adapted, else he wouldn't last a million years. No, this is not how the species is perpetuated. This is a fable invented by man in order to justify his claims of an evolutionary process. But the theory of "adapting to the environment" is really ridiculous once carefully examined? It's even laughable hearing some explanations. The problem is, no one bothers to take the time to think about it seriously, they merely (like lemmings) play the game of "follow the evolutionist!" Man thinks that he is learning something, when in truth he has no real knowledge, nor the truth.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive😆 Sounds like you JIA, you both don't understand it. 😆
[b]The Great Evolution Myth
Part II (The Scientific Perspective)
by Tony WarrenNo knowledgeable Christian denies this process. All Christians know and believe in the inherited changes in people and organisms. But evolution is the "ludicrous" theory that something can change by itself into a totally different thing, given enough time, simply because it of itself needs to, because of it's environment. The terms used most often are "Natural Selection" or that they "Adapted to their environment".
As a practical example, imagine there was a horse, and he couldn't reach the branches on some trees, or there wasn't enough food at ground level. The evolutionist theory is that given a million years or so, he'd adapt to his environment by growing a neck long enough to reach the branches (perhaps evolve into a giraffe), simply because of the need to adapt to the environment. But when you think seriously about it, you will find it both illogical and I dare say, unscientific! Because this idea assumes (the mother of all errors) that in all those years this horse is in continual "need" to reach higher branches. That is unlikely, improbable considering the world, as well as unscientific. This assumes this horse (or whatever creature) will continually "need" to change to adapt to the environment over those long periods of time. And keep in mind, this is an environment which they claim is itself continually changing. Again, this is not science, it's science fiction and illogical considering these facts. Will this horse-like creature continually over millions of years "need" to eat from higher branches in order grow a neck long enough to reach them? If he is surviving for millions of years without the long neck, why would he need to grow a long neck? Why would he need to adapt, he's obviously already adapted, else he wouldn't last a million years. No, this is not how the species is perpetuated. This is a fable invented by man in order to justify his claims of an evolutionary process. But the theory of "adapting to the environment" is really ridiculous once carefully examined? It's even laughable hearing some explanations. The problem is, no one bothers to take the time to think about it seriously, they merely (like lemmings) play the game of "follow the evolutionist!" Man thinks that he is learning something, when in truth he has no real knowledge, nor the truth.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/evolve2.html [/B]
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You have sidestepped my original question. Why are there no transitional fossils linking bats to whales?
bats and whales are probably the most extreme opposite ends of the mammal categorisation{other than maybe a duck billed platypus}. neither one evolved FROM the other so there would be no transitional fossils linking the two. there would possibly be existing transitional fossils linking each to its own evolutionary ancestor. and if the transitional fossils of those ancestors and THEIR ancestors were traced back far enough{practically beginning of the mammallian categorisation as you intentionally gave two species at oppsing ends of the mammalian category} they would both come to the same ancestral species. however, the amount of trasitions in this case would be TOO great to practically do, furthermore, the greater the transitions, the lesser the probability of finding all the possible fossils on earth {and already there is a SEVERE shortage of sceitists involved in such underfunded and hard excavation/identification work as it is, specially seeing that the chances of finding proper fossils are remote as it is} due to both number, and time passage which can damage/destroy the older fossils. and the common ancestor would probably be some of the oldest mammals. so yea, its like asking sum1 to predict the behavious of an entire car using quantum mechanics alone, its far too much calculation and work. however since, like quantum mechanics, the basics of micro and macro evolution have been proven, they stand as an extremely{much more so than any other hypothesis} probable theory of the phenomenon and can not be discredited just by your silly questions which can only appeal to an ignorant layman's sense of logic.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[b]The Great Evolution Myth
Part II (The Scientific Perspective)
by Tony WarrenNo knowledgeable Christian denies this process. All Christians know and believe in the inherited changes in people and organisms. But evolution is the "ludicrous" theory that something can change by itself into a totally different thing, given enough time, simply because it of itself needs to, because of it's environment. The terms used most often are "Natural Selection" or that they "Adapted to their environment".
As a practical example, imagine there was a horse, and he couldn't reach the branches on some trees, or there wasn't enough food at ground level. The evolutionist theory is that given a million years or so, he'd adapt to his environment by growing a neck long enough to reach the branches (perhaps evolve into a giraffe), simply because of the need to adapt to the environment. But when you think seriously about it, you will find it both illogical and I dare say, unscientific! Because this idea assumes (the mother of all errors) that in all those years this horse is in continual "need" to reach higher branches. That is unlikely, improbable considering the world, as well as unscientific. This assumes this horse (or whatever creature) will continually "need" to change to adapt to the environment over those long periods of time. And keep in mind, this is an environment which they claim is itself continually changing. Again, this is not science, it's science fiction and illogical considering these facts. Will this horse-like creature continually over millions of years "need" to eat from higher branches in order grow a neck long enough to reach them? If he is surviving for millions of years without the long neck, why would he need to grow a long neck? Why would he need to adapt, he's obviously already adapted, else he wouldn't last a million years. No, this is not how the species is perpetuated. This is a fable invented by man in order to justify his claims of an evolutionary process. But the theory of "adapting to the environment" is really ridiculous once carefully examined? It's even laughable hearing some explanations. The problem is, no one bothers to take the time to think about it seriously, they merely (like lemmings) play the game of "follow the evolutionist!" Man thinks that he is learning something, when in truth he has no real knowledge, nor the truth.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/evolve2.html [/B]
HOLY HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that article is SO rife with ignorance and stupidity, that it astounds me how any1 cud even think it credible. COMPLETELY misunderstanding the very CORE of what the theory of evolution states. god i feal like completely destroying it with a reply, but i think ill refrain. the past has taught me that even a step by step explanation and reference to the actual theory will do no good against the thickness of your head that is, christianity. honestly it ludicrous what rationalisations christians{who r actually adults and in a respectable enough place in the christian society to be QUOTED by them} come up with to try and discredit a theory they have OBVIOUSLY not read ANYTHING about{as the ignorance in this passage is testament to}.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.returnofthenephilim.com/NeanderthalAndNephilim.html
I'll be happy to point out the mistakes of the site's points:
1. It's nice that the site is pointing out the fact that the first Neandertal skeleton was in fact an elderly individual, but how can they assume that his condition labels him as just a uniquely altered human, when so many specimens have been found with the same characteristics such as the large forhead, lack of chin, and the presence of an occipital bun on the skull?
Also they fail to point out that neandertal culture was far more simplistic compared to the human culture of that time.
2. The average brain size was actually about 1600cc. It is shown that a larger brain is proven to be more metabolically efficient in cold weather, along with their larger nose. Brain size does not tie into how intelligent they were. Based on this arguement, Tyrannosaurus Rex should be smarter than humans. The author also claims that scientists today classify neandertal as an ape-man, which is also false. Why do you think we classify them as Homo sapiens neandertalenthis?
3. He got this part spot on, even indicating the structural differences between neandertal and man.
4. Neandertals did have advanced skills, but not as advanced as Homo sapiens sapiens of that time. The author also makes false claims when saying they made fire-hardened spears when evidence has shown that neandertal's tools were mousterian in style.
6. "A further study (d'Errico, 1998b, 2000) involved detailed analysis of the putative flute and of 77 other perforated bones from different levels of Divje Babe and from four other Slovenian cave bear sites. Among these sites, Krizna Jama is of particular interest as it contains a natural cave bear bone assemblage with no traces of human occupation. A number of variables were recorded. The flute and several others bones were submitted to microscopic analysis. The new study confirms the interpretation of the holes as the result of carnivore damage. In 70% of the cases, the holes on perforated bones are associated with damage characteristic of carnivore action, such as pitting and scoring, and in 20% of the cases, bones show counterbite marks in the form of opposing perforations, or perforations opposite to impressions produced by tooth pressure. Seventy-three percent of the perforated bones belong to young bears, as is the case for the putative flute.
7.Once again, they had culture, but it was not as advanced as humans of the time. There is evidence that some neandertal groups cared for their old (but didn't you say that only humans have emotions?), but there is also evidence that some neandertal groups were cannibalistic.
8. Neandertals did have a concept of life and death, and did bury their dead in simple ceremmonial fashions such as positioning the bodies in a sleeping position and even putting flowers in with the body. Still, these ceremonies are once again not as advanced as humans of that time.
9. It has been speculated how neandertal's thinking was compared to a human's, primarily due to differences in size in certain parts of the brain.
10. He points out that they may have been cruel warriors and practiced cannibalism. The evidence of this has only been found in some sites. Seems contradictory that he would focus on this when previously he talked of how neandertal had a culture that was caring.
11. Last time I checked, there have been no occurences of neandertal being found with man in the same areas at the same time.
12-14. He seems to think that people just guess about the age of some fossils, and seems to think that C14 dating is only good for 3,000 years of dating, which is rather false, considering you can date as accurately as up to 50,000 years based on where it is performed.
Originally posted by Burning thought
the Truth? ,there is no Truth to the bible...nor religion for that matter, nothing can be proven and i say because it doesnt excist
Prove that there is no Truth in the Bible (don't you understand that anyone can say what you said, but can you support what you said?).
Re: Can you handle the Truth?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do people get offended when you tell them the truth as it pertains to the Bible?
could you handle the truth? if someone told you and poved to you without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus never existed...could you handle that? no you couldn't because then you'd face the truth that you've based and designed your whole life on a lie...