Question for Evolutionists

[Sir Humphrey]

If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? 

AHHAH! I bet you can't answer this one, evolutionists! 

[Joel_A]

If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? 

AHHAH! I bet you can't answer this one, evolutionists! 

If 2 people started throwing feces at each other would that count as monkey behavior?

[Sir Humphrey]

Another hard one for the evolutionists:

If evolution is true, why can't you produce proof of a dog evolving into a cat, or a monkey evolving into a whale?

[The Luke]

Evolution is kinda like an understanding of the number line...


You could put forward the theory/theorem that all natural numbers are alternately odd, and even; excepting zero.


Those who understand basic mathematics/science and can comprehend the number line understand the theory in an ituitive manner that is at once both obvious and apparent. They agree: alternate odd and even natural numbers ad infinitum.

Those with very poor comprehension skills (or a stubborn disinclination to thought) disagree. So they continue to spout their inane propaganda arguments:

"How do you know every second number is even? Have you divided every single second number by two?"

"I have a five thousand year old book which claims the existence of three consective odd numbers! How do you explain such a claim in an irrefutble and infallible holy book?"

"My religious book claims numbers only became odd and even six thosand years ago when god divided them thusly."

"What about exceedingly large numbers, your theory breaks down for really big numbers... and you can't prove it doesn't."




Sir Humphrey,

Your questions imply you fall into the second camp... they are what scientists deem: "Not even wrong".

Evolution is a mathematical fact. To deny it is to deny reality itself.



The Luke

[tonymctones]

when you say monkey you like most ppl who dont understand evolution undoubtedly invision a modern day monkey...

The problem is that we didnt evolve from monkeys as they are today we share a common ancestor not to far back.

we are actually more like cousins rather then sons or daughters if that helps you understand it better.

let me ask you this, why is it that no fossils of modern day humans are found further back then 200k yrs or so? we have plenty of life before that and seeing as a you believe that we were created in the form we are today this wouldnt be the case would it?

[gcb]

Another hard one for the evolutionists:

If evolution is true, why can't you produce proof of a dog evolving into a cat, or a monkey evolving into a whale?

We have "faith" that it happens 

[Sir Humphrey]

Here's another one for the Darwin-worshipers:

How does Darwinism explain the origin of life? 11 pages on and the other thread still doesn't contain an explanation. How can you prove the world is millions and millions of years old when the Bible is clear? Why do you refuse to believe the evidence for the worldwide flood presented by scientists like Dr. Hovind and Dr. Snelling among others?

[big L dawg]

this guy is hilarious^^^

[Sir Humphrey]

Why do Darwinists and evilutionists keep asking questions and asking for "evidence" when the Bible is clear and presents all the facts? Is God's Word not evidence enough for them? 

[big L dawg]

Why do Darwinists and evilutionists keep asking questions and asking for "evidence" when the Bible is clear and presents all the facts? Is God's Word not evidence enough for them? 

So your evidence is a book?and you think there facts?you think a guy lived in the belly of a fish?Or another guy made a boat big enough to hold all the animals in the world?God's word haha...it's just another book and all books are mans word...

[tonymctones]

Here's another one for the Darwin-worshipers:

How does Darwinism explain the origin of life? 11 pages on and the other thread still doesn't contain an explanation. How can you prove the world is millions and millions of years old when the Bible is clear? Why do you refuse to believe the evidence for the worldwide flood presented by scientists like Dr. Hovind and Dr. Snelling among others?

LOL perhaps you should actually study evolution before you make a hasty judgement on it...

darwin never postulated about the origin of life in his theory of natural selection, evolution has nothing to do with how life began. This is why you can believe in God but also evolution AS CHARLES DARWIN DID WHILE BEING MEMBER OF THE CLERGY IN HIS CHURCH AND DEVELOPING THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION

I dont know if youre a troll and just doing this for kick or serious but if youre serious you need to do some research b/c you look ignorant as all get out.

As Ive been good enough to answer both of your questions please answer mine...

let me ask you this, why is it that no fossils of modern day humans are found further back then 200k yrs or so? we have plenty of life before that and seeing as a you believe that we were created in the form we are today this wouldnt be the case would it?

[tonymctones]

Here's another one for the Darwin-worshipers:

How does Darwinism explain the origin of life? 11 pages on and the other thread still doesn't contain an explanation. How can you prove the world is millions and millions of years old when the Bible is clear? Why do you refuse to believe the evidence for the worldwide flood presented by scientists like Dr. Hovind and Dr. Snelling among others?

its called radiometric dating techniques again do some research...

Even if the world was say 6000 yrs old the if they were alive at the same time the dating would show it as the same technique is used for both specimens. Even if the dating technique got the overall years wrong it the two specimens would have the same date if the lived at the same time. There is no way around it modern humans werent around when dinosaurs etc. were. how do you explain this?

[tonymctones]

bizump for an answer...

[Joel_A]

bizump for an answer...

he's obviously just trolling.

[The Luke]

You could put forward the theory/theorem that all natural numbers are alternately odd, and even; excepting zero.

Those who understand basic mathematics/science and can comprehend the number line understand the theory in an ituitive manner that is at once both obvious and apparent. They agree: alternate odd and even natural numbers ad infinitum.

Those with very poor comprehension skills (or a stubborn disinclination to thought) disagree. So they continue to spout their inane propaganda arguments:

...I'm quoting from my original post in this thread, because I feel it is an important point:

No one would argue that somewhere further up the numberline there exists three consecutive odd numbers (or three consecutive even numbers) becase we all understand the basic alternate odd/even number pattern.

Those arguing against evolution simply don't understand it.

Why they can't accept the viewpoint of scientists who affirm it a mathematical enevitability, is beyond me.

Why they can't accept that smarter people than them actually do understand it, is beyond me.


In every other aspect of their lives they accept science; no one insists that God created their ipod, yet they dont understand the inner workings of their ipod either.


Is this the real split? Is this a comprehensive ability split? The thinking versus the unthinking?


Maybe we should be asking ourselves; where are the critics of evolution who actually understand the evolutionary process?


The Luke

[ToxicAvenger]

If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? 

why cant religious people grasp a concept as simple as "branching" ..and Monkeys didn't start it all...thats NOT what evolutionists say...

qwe all came from single celled organisms  <microbes>
http://www.biorlz.info/pictures/evo.jpg

[Government_Controlled]

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:


1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.


Can these critiera be met?



GC/DEA_AGENT

[The Luke]

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.

Can these critiera be met?

...yes, well at least to the standard that a Nobel Prize; million dollar cash prize and worldwide fame are up for grabs and all the very smartest people in the world have been looking to falsify these precepts for a hundred years to no success.

But I suppose if some ancient book of superstitions cast doubt on the millions of pages of painstakingly researched and verified evidence....


The Luke

[Sir Humphrey]

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:


1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.


Can these critiera be met?



GC/DEA_AGENT

No they can't. There is no evidence that mutation are beneficial for creating new species. Did you ever see a duck mutate into a crocoduck?

And how does natural selection create new species? It can't. There is no evidence that lions eating gazelles one generation after another turns the gazelles into hyenas.

As for the fossil record, it doesn't document change in plants or animals. Fossils are just animals who died in the Flood. Why can't evilutionists read the Bible and see for themselves?

[Government_Controlled]

No they can't. There is no evidence that mutation are beneficial for creating new species. Did you ever see a duck mutate into a crocoduck?

And how does natural selection create new species? It can't. There is no evidence that lions eating gazelles one generation after another turns the gazelles into hyenas.

As for the fossil record, it doesn't document change in plants or animals. Fossils are just animals who died in the Flood. Why can't evilutionists read the Bible and see for themselves?

Yes, this is what I have researched to be true, however, Luke and the "Nobel Winners" seem to have "hidden" evidence to the contrary. I would like to see it. I'm very open minded when it comes to this subject, as you can imagine. 



GC/DEA_AGENT

[The Luke]

Yes, this is what I have researched to be true, however, Luke and the "Nobel Winners" seem to have "hidden" evidence to the contrary. I would like to see it. I'm very open minded when it comes to this subject, as you can imagine. 

GC/DEA_AGENT

...maybe read a second book.


The Luke

[Government_Controlled]

...maybe read a second book.


The Luke

Luke, friend, why so hard on the old man? Hey, would you be so kind to point me to the book/source that can answer those 3 questions? I would greatly appreciate it. Peace!

This would be a start for me to consider the allegations of evolution. At the moment, I'm going to stick to the Bible's teaching. Although, there are many a great minds whom also agree with intellgent design.





GC/DEA_AGENT

[big L dawg]

Luke, friend, why so hard on the old man? Hey, would you be so kind to point me to the book/source that can answer those 3 questions? I would greatly appreciate it. Peace!



GC/DEA_AGENT

do you want him to read it to you to?

google is your friend....

[Government_Controlled]

Another hard one for the evolutionists:

If evolution is true, why can't you produce proof of a dog evolving into a cat, or a monkey evolving into a whale?

Ah, there is no such, that's why!




GC/DEA_AGENT

[The Luke]

Luke, friend, why so hard on the old man? Hey, would you be so kind to point me to the book/source that can answer those 3 questions? I would greatly appreciate it. Peace!

This would be a start for me to consider the allegations of evolution. At the moment, I'm going to stick to the Bible's teaching. Although, there are many a great minds whom also agree with intellgent design.

GC/DEA_AGENT

...the allegations of evolution?

...seeing as so-called "Intelligent Design" is merely an evolutionary adaption of "Literal Creationism"; it seems you already accept, understand and implement evolution.

After all, you guys sent "Literal Creationism" out into the world, but it got beat down... beat down bad... so you let it have babies, all slightly different but keeping what worked: "Intelligent Design"; "Metaphorical Creationism"; "Symbolic Creationism"; "Allegorical Creationism" etc etc etc

Only "Intelligent Design" could put up a fight, so you guys jumped on it.

That's evolution in practice.



All sarcasm aside... if you are really interested in understanding evolution there are several steps you can take:

1- Read a second book... reading is good, why stop with the Bible?
2- Take an IQ test... if it's less than 90 go back to the Bible and read no further.
3- Take a critical thinking class
4- Get a highschool education
5- Take some introductory general science courses
6- Take an introductory biology course
7- Read an introductory biology textbook
8- Read up on the Theory of Evolution
9- Read "On the Origins of Species (By Means of Natural Selection)" by Charles Darwin
10- Make up your own mind


The Luke