The Delusion of Evolution

[Neandertal Ned]

There is plenty of evidence that the so-called "process" of evoution is more of a delusion than a real biological process. It is a delusion in the sense that you can only imagine a species of one genus "evolving" into the species of an entirely different animal genus by "natural selection" alone since no one has ever observed it to happen "naturally" in real life. Until physically demonstrated to have ever happened on earth let alone that is physically possible nowadays or at some distant time in the future, it can only be called a mass delusion on the part of the so-called "scientific community."

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/ ... ution.html

http://www.god-book.com/TheEvolutionDelusion.htm



http://evolutiondelusion.blogspot.com/

Do you have any doubts or objections to evolution being classified as a mass delusion or modern myth?

[Boots]

Fossil specimens of Human species? Prove it. Show me the physical evidence.

Question for you, Ned. How much physical evidence against evolution have you held in your hand/seen with your own eyes? Websites/photos/published articles don't count.

Since you are demanding to see, with your own eyes, the physical fossils proving evolution, you MUST have seen, with your own eyes, the physical evidence refuting it.

Or are you engaging in double-standards?

[micatala]

No, but oil geologists have the actual rocks brought up from wells they drill. They know the geology otherwise they wouldn't be able to find oil. You can cover your eyes and deny the evidence if you wish, but every single piece of evidence mentioned in the site I referenced exists courtesy of the oil industry, and much if not all of it is available in their publications.

I didn't see any evidence which would substantiate the millions of years it would take to form the strata. There is no denying the stratification but only flood theory explains it.

I can certainly substantiate the millions of years using these layers as well as other evidence.

However, let's just look at the stratification for now.

Which of these layers in the Williston formation were the result of the flood? Which layers (if any) were laid down prior to the flood? Which layers (if any) were laid down after the flood?

Also, when do you think the flood occurred? 4000 years ago? 6000? 160,000?

[derwood]

There is plenty of evidence that the so-called "process" of evoution is more of a delusion than a real biological process. It is a delusion in the sense that you can only imagine a species of one genus "evolving" into the species of an entirely different animal genus by "natural selection" alone since no one has ever observed it to happen "naturally" in real life.

I wasn't aware that evolution says that one species of one genus could evolve into a species of an entirely different animal genus where does it say that?

I was wondering that myself. seems that it is easier to argue against evolution when you just make up stuff about it.

[derwood]

Genesis also accounts for all of the plants and animals which exist and accounts for the fossilization of millions of extinct species buried in the earth after the worldwide flood.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... in+genesis

Except, of course, you have to ignore many facts, such as 'DATING OF THE FOSSILS', and 'THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN' and 'PLANTS BEING FORMED BEFORE THE SUN' in Genesis. So, that falsifies your claim....

Hardly, since the fossils can only be dated according to flood theory and the geologic column confirms the flood.

COmpletely and utterly false. The geologic evidence completely refutes the flood.

Not true. You can't refute the flood.

See the geological column in North Dakota.

Do you have a photo of it?

http://www.google.com/search?q=geologic ... 24&bih=493

http://creation.com/does-geologic-column-exist

http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconce ... ic-column/

Flood geology in fact is the most delusional part of the anti-evolutionary obsession.

The evolutionary obsession with the millions of years they attribute to the geologic colums is even more delusionary.

If the Flood really happened, then a more or less complete geologic column should be the norm.

Creationists do not seem to think through their positions very well.

[Artie]

I wasn't aware that evolution says that one species of one genus could evolve into a species of an entirely different animal genus where does it say that?

I was wondering that myself. seems that it is easier to argue against evolution when you just make up stuff about it.

Just a question of semantics. It would appear that one member of the genus Australopithecus evolved into Homo Sapiens which is another genus. We are all animals, so technically one could say that an animal from one genus evolved into an animal of another genus.

[Neandertal Ned]

Fossil specimens of Human species? Prove it. Show me the physical evidence.

Question for you, Ned. How much physical evidence against evolution have you held in your hand/seen with your own eyes? Websites/photos/published articles don't count.

None. There is no more evidence against evolution than there is for it. Same goes for creation. The only evidence we have is of massive fossilization and of the various theories about it.

Since you are demanding to see, with your own eyes, the physical fossils proving evolution, you MUST have seen, with your own eyes, the physical evidence refuting it.

No one doubt the existence of massive fossilization at some time in the past although there are disputes about what caused it and exactly when it happened.

Or are you engaging in double-standards?

Not that I know. Are you?

[Neandertal Ned]

No, but oil geologists have the actual rocks brought up from wells they drill. They know the geology otherwise they wouldn't be able to find oil. You can cover your eyes and deny the evidence if you wish, but every single piece of evidence mentioned in the site I referenced exists courtesy of the oil industry, and much if not all of it is available in their publications.

I didn't see any evidence which would substantiate the millions of years it would take to form the strata. There is no denying the stratification but only flood theory explains it.

I can certainly substantiate the millions of years using these layers as well as other evidence.

However, let's just look at the stratification for now.

Which of these layers in the Williston formation were the result of the flood? Which layers (if any) were laid down prior to the flood? Which layers (if any) were laid down after the flood?

I don't know. Not a geologist.

Also, when do you think the flood occurred? 4000 years ago? 6000? 160,000?

Obviously, it would have been sometime before archeologists date the beginning of civilization in ancient Mesopotamia.

[Neandertal Ned]

There is plenty of evidence that the so-called "process" of evoution is more of a delusion than a real biological process. It is a delusion in the sense that you can only imagine a species of one genus "evolving" into the species of an entirely different animal genus by "natural selection" alone since no one has ever observed it to happen "naturally" in real life.

I wasn't aware that evolution says that one species of one genus could evolve into a species of an entirely different animal genus where does it say that?

I was wondering that myself. seems that it is easier to argue against evolution when you just make up stuff about it.

Glad to see that you and Artie agree with me that the first so-called "species" of the genus Homo did NOT evolve from a species of another hominid genus like Australopithicus or any other genus. Homo (Man) must have just popped up out of thin air or dropped out of the trees!

[Neandertal Ned]

The evolutionary obsession with the millions of years they attribute to the geologic colums is even more delusionary.

If the Flood really happened, then a more or less complete geologic column should be the norm.

Problem is that the "complete" column does not seem to exist outside of North Dakota so what is the "norm" in the rest of the world?

http://genesismission.4t.com/Geology/pgc.html

http://www.wasdarwinright.com/geologicalcolumn.htm

Creationists do not seem to think through their positions very well.

Neither do most Darwinists.

http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconce ... ic-column/

[Neandertal Ned]

I wasn't aware that evolution says that one species of one genus could evolve into a species of an entirely different animal genus where does it say that?

I was wondering that myself. seems that it is easier to argue against evolution when you just make up stuff about it.

Just a question of semantics. It would appear that one member of the genus Australopithecus evolved into Homo Sapiens which is another genus. We are all animals, so technically one could say that an animal from one genus evolved into an animal of another genus.

Nice work, Artie. I suspected that a dedicated Darwinist like would be able to figure it out sooner or later and see the light. Lordy me, if you don't understand your Darwinist taxonomies and phylogenetic trees, how ya ever gonna test and demonstrate the evolution of genera, let alone species?