Not only that, but evolutionists are asking us to believe that this perfect random mutation happened over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again to develop the cognition, bi-pedal qualities, the ability to form concepts and analyses and the ability to rule over the animals that the human being posseses. This then makes the odds of evolution so astronimoical as to be impossible. And none of this is provable. It is all a "what if" hypothesis that comes from the imagination. One would have a better chance in saying that aliens came and deposited human beings before there were any witnesses & will come back millions of years from to to prove it! At least that doesn't contradict the reproductive process, and random mutation. But what evolutionists don't realize is, that if this pattern of mutation happened, then it is no longer random because random mutation does not Keep adding superior genes to the cell. It is random.Evolutionists are also asking us to believe the an ape and a "common ancestor" mated to produce a mutant who then found another mutant with the exact same mutation and they bred an offspring who found another mutant who then bred offspring with another mutant whose genes had added another superior trait by accident, and they found another mutant to breed with who also had another superior gene added to his DNA and on and on. This is not only astronomical, but completely bizarre as well. And all of this to deny that God exists!

That's always a standard answer from evolutionists when they see how ridiculous their theory is. They always say that other people don't understand it. Then they go right back and repeat the exact same thing that others whom they say don't understand it, said about it.

Then why not simply believe that God created man? Why invent the theory of evolution at all? There are so many gaping holes in it that it's an embarrassment to science. It doesn't explain how the "common ancestor" got the traits of a human, or where it came from, the incalculable mutations that would have had to have occur by chance in the myriad of generations of apes, what this "common ancestor" looked like, or if it even existed at all! If you're going to say that this "common ancestor" just appeared, then why not simply believe that God created humans? What other explanation for our miraculous life can there be except from a miraculous source? Why would a miraculous creation come from an unmiraculous source? That's an oxymoron...unless of course you don't believe in the miracle of life or the miraculous nature of God. But if you do, then again, why not accept the biblical account of creation? That supports reality perfectly, by the way. Humans were created as a separate species to rule over the animals and each animal breeds its own kind. And that is the way that creation has been operating since the beginning of recorded history. So why mess with that at all if you believe in God?This message has been edited by Carico, 12-08-2005 03:06 PM

So how have humans evolved since the beginning of recorded history? We still breed defective babies and healthy ones just like we've always done. In the 20th century, the world was subject to 2 of the most evil men (Hitler and Stalin) who have ever lived and who were responsible for more deaths because of their evil than anyone esle in history, there have been more cases of genocide in the 20th century than in any other century in history, our "technology" renders us closer to annihilation than ever before, there are more std's and wars all over the globe, and most of the advances in technology have been the accumulation of information gathered from the previous people in history.In addition, no human being has ever produced an offspring so different from himself that he was given the name of a new species. We humans are the same as we've ever been except that we don't live as long as those in biblical times. So again, how have we evolved?This message has been edited by Carico, 12-09-2005 09:05 AMThis message has been edited by Carico, 12-09-2005 09:06 AM

Sorry, but it depends on what people read. If they read the theories of scientists which cannot be supported by reality, they will only be more deceived.And as for Hitler and Stalin, as I posted, they have shown that men aren't evolving at all! And if it's true that man has been around for millions of years, then we humans should be a lot more evolved than we are! That's for sure. So that alone proves the fallacy of evolution because now either evolutionists will have to say that the ape evolved into the complex human being over millions of years, but it suddenly stopped, or increase the time that it took apes to evolve into a man. So when exactly, did the human being as we have known it since the beginning of recorded history finally acquire the ability to form analyses, speak languages, etc?What evolutionists also don't realize is that the first man on earth did not have the benefit of thousands of years of previous information to suddenly build bridges and skyscrapers, (although those in the ancient world had a lot more understanding of how to do that than we realize)as we do today. They just call the first men stupid and ape-like, and primitive, because those men couldn't rely on past minds. So when people are born today, they are simply taught information that was gathered over hundreds of centuries. They do not have to rethink all of the calulations that historical figures already did in order to use them in our every day lives. So no. Man is not more intelligent or advanced as many people would like to think of themselves. That is called arrogance and it is also a deception.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-09-2005 11:13 AMThis message has been edited by Carico, 12-09-2005 11:14 AM

Also, no human baby born in any generation was born with knowledge. He has to learn it now just as he had to learn the knowledge that was given to him thousands of years ago. So no human baby is any more intelligent today than he used to be. He simply learns whatever is taught him just like he always had. So again, none of us is any better than those who lived in the past. That again is arrogance and the sin of pride which is what initaited the theory of evolution in the first place. It is playing God which is actually a delusion of grandeur. And people who play God will always be humbled because it is a delusion. So anyone who has the audacity to think he knows better than God how we were created will also be humbled.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-09-2005 11:24 AM

Sorry, but if you can't prove my post wrong, then your attack on me is completely unwarranted. So I'd suggest you stick to the topic instead of personal attacks. If your arguments are true and hold no contradictions, then they will stand on their own merit and there will be no need for personal attacks. But it is simply a fact that those who play God are delusional because none of us is omniscient or omnipotent which is also a fact. Therefore, my remarks about evolutionists can be proven.Again, any man-made invention will eventually crumble and perish because it is as terminal and perishable as man is. Therefore, any theory that contradicts God's word will always crumble and perish because man is fallible. Therefore, the theory of evolution is a fallacy.

Then why do evolutionists have a theory called; "survival of the fittest?" What does fittest imply to you? Unfit?That also has been proven false because there are still defective babies born in every species. And there are millions of babies in every species who die young. So again, you have a lot of explaining to do so that your theory has no contradictions, my friend.

And saying that humans have no better gifts or qualities than the animals is an incredible lack of gratitude for your life. We humans have the ability to be grateful and thankful because we have the capacity to understand the miracle of our lives which animals do not. Yet so many people don't use that ability at all, nor even acknowledge it! Humans were created to rule over the animals which is exactly how the world works. We have the capacity to outsmart them and the capacity to treat them with kindness even when they threaten our lives which they do not have the ability to do. This again, is basic Science 101 and is what the bible tells us man would have the ability to do. But again, evolutionists throw that out and exchange it for the opposite; saying that apes created man BY ACCIDENT over and over ad over again through millions of years. That in itself is an oxymoron!

Off Topic. Please do not respond to this message

So far, no one has proven anything I've said wrong. All they have to do is prove me wrong and there would be no need to attack me personally. But no one has pointed out any contradiction I've made. It's very easy to say anything. That doesn't take any effort. What's harder is to back up those words with proof. So let's hear some proof that any of my posts are wrong or contradictory. Thank you.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 12:48 PMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-12-2005 12:07 PM

Off Topic. Please do not respond to this message

I'm also still waiting for an anwer to my questions:1) Is it not true that descendants are created through the mating of their ancestors? Yes or no. I've heard opposite answers on this forum. Some say we used to be able to breed with apes or primates, others say we've never been able to breed with them. So who knows the answer?2) If the answer to my previous question is yes, then how could human beings have "evolved" from apes without the mating between an ape and a human? Explanations like a "common ancestor" who has still not appeared in the first place, do not explain how he got human traits in him to begin with, nor how he could have created the human being when he himself already had human traits!3)And lastly, if evolution is factual enough to be the only theory of man's origin to be taught in the schools, then why are there so many conflicting statements by evolutionists on how man got here? Some say man got here by apes, others say not apes but primates who aren't around any more and have never been found, and still others say the ape was different millions of years ago when no one has a picture of this ape. So which is it? If it is factual, then why so much confusion by evolutionists? Also, if it is factual, then why does this common ancestor still exist only in the imagination? Thank you.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-12-2005 12:08 PM

This topic is the primary mechanism of evolution, is it not? Are we not discussing how evolution can be the primary mechanism of ppropogating each species?

This is Off Topic. Please do not respond to this message.

This post was not considered off-topic so I'll reply to it. One poster on here stated that the common ancestor had the traits of a human and a primate. Is this not true? if not, then how could he have traits common to both primates and humans? And if he doesn't have traits common to both humans and primates, then why do evolutionists look for a common ancestor? Will someone please explain that? Thanks you.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-12-2005 12:41 PM

I also want to add that the above response was to a post in this thread and the topic was the exact same topic on which I posted a few posts ago.Yet mine was considered off-topic and this poster's was not. Please explain this contradiction to me. Thank you.

This is Off Topic. Please do not respond to this message.

In order to show the fallacy of why the primary mechanism of evolution is is mutation, one first has to understand how offspring are produced. And since there have been contradictory answers to that question on this thread, then how can a person even begin to discuss mutation if an animal and a primate can't mate in the first place? Therefore, that has to be an establshed fact before mutation is even possible. So it is a very relevant issue to this thread. Thank you.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-12-2005 12:47 PM