Evolution for Dummies and Christians

So then how can we possibly be descendants of apes if humans breed humans and apes breed apes? Are you now going to contradict the original premise of evolution?

They're still fish. They didn't turn into dogs like evolutionists say apes turned into humans. I have to get to bed now and will coninue this in the morning.

So now are you saying that apes did not turn into humans and we are not descendants of apes? Because there are a lot of evolutionists who say that we are. The TV documentary "From Ape to Man" had many on there who do. And so do many on this forum evidenced by the thread; "From chimp to human." So I'd suggest you get your stories straight. And you have no patience with ME? You guys can't even agree on a premise! Or you change it as fast as the weather. But that's what happens when the premise is a lie. One has to tell a 2nd lie then a 3rd and 4rth to explain the 1st lie until pretty soon they can't remember the 1st lie! Otherwise there is no explanation for controversy between evolutionists about your premise.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-08-2005 08:04 AM

And how can I understand evolution when evolutionists keep contradicting themselves? I'm simply trying to pin down your premise. Is it or is it not true that evolutionists believe that man came from the ape? If it is true, then I am right when I say that is a premise of evolution. If it is not true, then you better delete all the threads in the category on "Human Origins" which say that we do. So again, which is it?

I will listen. But if I see contradictions, am I free to point them out? I have heard the same statements about evolution for over 30 years, so I don't think there's anything new you can tell me. And then when i point out contradictions, they either change their premis or yell at me because of their contradictions. So what do you suggest I do? I know I'm going to hear things I've heard many times before. But i'm wondering if it's possible for evolutionists themsleves to see their own contradictions. Is it?

So is this common ancestor half-man, half-beast? If not, then how can it be common to both humans and apes? If so, then how did it develop the traits of another species without mating with it? Are you saying that animals spontaneously turn into other species without mating?

You.

Random mutation is exactly that. Random. It does not keep adding new genes to a cell in the same offspring over and over and over again in the same species. It is random and happens by chance. That also means that the likelihood of this mutant's offspring also having a random mutation is almost nil, ESPECIALLY adding another superior gene like the ability to talk. But that's what evolutionists propose for us to believe, which is a contradiction. The number of mutations that would have to have occured for MILLIONS of years for an ape to turn into a man is more impossible than anything in the bible!!No. You still haven't proven how a great Dane and a Chihuaua were ever able to breed. I know it's possible for a human to manipulate genes, but not for animals themselves to do it. So without human manipulation, how can a Great Dane and a chihuahua produce offspring together? And where is the proof that they ever could?

You don't seem to realize that there are always variations within each species. But calling humans the same species as apes just to say there is no God is ludicrous. Reality doesn't support that and neither does the process of reproduction. Therefore, your statement about short people, tall people, etc. is completely meaningless because they are still human beings. And by using the dog example, you're trying to show that humans and apes can cross-breed, are you not? If so, then you are suggesting bestiality which is not only impossible, but perverse as well. If not, then why bring up the dog example? I have to be offline for awhile. I'll be back later.

I did answer that. Yes they do. But not to the same species generation after generation after generation. Then they are no longer random, particularly when the mutations just "happen" to keep producing superior traits over and over again.

I'd like to qualify my answer. Mutations can "appear" to be random, but there is always a reason for them even if humans don't know what it is. So no, I don't believe in random mutation. I believe that mutation happenes even though we might not know what caused it.

Everything in the universe happens for a reason because the universe is based on cause-effect. That is the basic principle that scienitsts rely on for logic, how electricity works, how nuclear energy works, how each cell works, how gravity works, and on and on. Yet scientists at the same time say things are random and there is no design! This is an oxymoron. But this is what happens when people defy God and try to play God themselves. Endless contradictions that lead them back to the same questions because they admit their previous theories were incorrect. This is just a game to deny God and people who have the audacity to think they know better than God will indeed look foolish. As Jesus said; "He who exalts himself will be humbled." And that has been shown to be true in every scientific theory that contradicts God's laws. When scientists agree with God, they will always be right. When they disagree with him they will always be wrong and look foolish as well. I really do have to go somewhere and will be back later.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-08-2005 10:14 AM

And where did this "common ancestor" obtain human qualities? Some primate had to acquire them in the first place in order to pass them along. So if you're going to say that this "common ancestor" just appeared, then why not say that humans just appeared? At least we have evidence that humans exist, but this "common ancestor" is still missing which means it has always only existed in the imagination. So why invent this theory and common ancestor in the first place? Evolution, therefore, still does not explain the first living creature, or where this common ancestor came from, or the incalculable number of mutations that had to all occur by chance in the same offspring in order to produce a human being, or what this creature looked like, or if he even existed at all! That's hardly scientific. And yet they call evolution a fact that they teach our children in the classrooms. Well they darn well better be able to explain these gaping holes in their theory and the perverse insuation that apes and humans are intermingled, or they're doing a gross injustice to our children and to the world.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-08-2005 02:49 PM

Not until someone answers my question about how this common ancestor acquired the traits of a human being which I've been asking repeatedly.

Well at least someone has made a truthful statement! The theory is therefore, only a theory and not based on facts. But again, the facts bear out the biblical account of creation perfectly, yet scientists are trying to convince the public not to allow it in our schools!Sorry, but all elementary biology students know that if an animal of one species is mixed with the traits of an animal of another species, there has been interbreeding going on. That can be learned in Biology 101 and most teen-agers can make that inference. So it's not my fault if evolutionists insinuate that apes and humans are intermingled. That has come from their minds, not mine. I don't buy into it at all. But this is what they're teaching our children.