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?

[Nilloc James]

The chemical process of the formation of coral and limestone seems to be the same.

http://geology.com/rocks/limestone.shtml

Coral are marine animals.

Limestone is a type of sedimentary rock.


Coral are formed by either polyps or when gametes meet.

Limestone is formed from the deposition of calcium carbonate.

Is it possible for me to point out any clearer how absurd this statement is? Time and time again it appears the greatest opposition to science is by those who understand it the least.

[Neandertal Ned]

The chemical process of the formation of coral and limestone seems to be the same.

http://geology.com/rocks/limestone.shtml

Coral are marine animals.

Limestone is a type of sedimentary rock.


Coral are formed by either polyps or when gametes meet.

Limestone is formed from the deposition of calcium carbonate.

Is it possible for me to point out any clearer how absurd this statement is?
Time and time again it appears the greatest opposition to science is by those who understand it the least.

Trouble with too much science is that everyone ends up interpreting the data to suit their own set of "facts."

Limestone-Forming Environment - Marine

Most limestones form in shallow, calm, warm marine waters. That type of environment is where organisms capable of forming calcium carbonate shells and skeletons can easily extract the needed ingredients from ocean water. When these animals die their shell and skeletal debris accumulate as a sediment that might be lithified into limestone. Their waste products can also contribute to the sediment mass. Limestones formed from this type of sediment are biological sedimentary rocks. Their biological origin is often revealed in the rock by the presence of fossils.

Some limestones can form by direct precipitation of calcium carbonate from marine or fresh water. Limestones formed this way are chemical sedimentary rocks. They are thought to be less abundant than biological limestones.

Today Earth has many limestone-forming environments. Most of them are found in shallow water areas between 30 degrees north latitude and 30 degrees south latitude. Limestone is forming in the Caribbean Sea, Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, Gulf of Mexico, around Pacific Ocean islands and within the Indonesian archipelago.

http://geology.com/rocks/limestone.shtml

[Wyvern]

The chemical process of the formation of coral and limestone seems to be the same.

http://geology.com/rocks/limestone.shtml

Coral are marine animals.

Limestone is a type of sedimentary rock.


Coral are formed by either polyps or when gametes meet.

Limestone is formed from the deposition of calcium carbonate.

Is it possible for me to point out any clearer how absurd this statement is?
Time and time again it appears the greatest opposition to science is by those who understand it the least.

Trouble with too much science is that everyone ends up interpreting the data to suit their own set of "facts."

Ok let me point out the big difference between the two in such a way you will even understand it Ned. Coral is formed from living creatures, limestone is formed sometimes by dead creatures. Get it? Coral alive, limestone dead.

[Nilloc James]

Two questions for Ned:

Are Corals rocks?

Is limestone alive?

[Artie]

Well, you assume that the first "species" of the genus Homo, "evolved" from a species of African apes in the genus of Australopithicus, don't you? At least that is what most Darwinists are theorizing these days. Where have you been, Artie?

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_1.htm

Oh. You said "you can only imagine a species of one genus "evolving" into the species of an entirely different animal genus". If you had meant that "a species of African apes in the genus of Australopithecus" evolved into "the first "species" of the genus Homo" that would have meant that you regarded "the first "species" of the genus Homo" to be animals like we do and not some especially made humans. But that was probably just a slip of the tongue. No need to pursue that further.

And of course calling Australopithecus a species of African apes is not nice and something I wouldn't do either. "The immediate ancestors of humans were members of the genus Australopithecus . The australopithecines (or australopiths) were intermediate between apes and people." http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm

Just out of curiosity, did God create "humans" and Australopithecus separately so that Australopithecus was regarded an animal?

[Neandertal Ned]

The chemical process of the formation of coral and limestone seems to be the same.

http://geology.com/rocks/limestone.shtml

Coral are marine animals.

Limestone is a type of sedimentary rock.


Coral are formed by either polyps or when gametes meet.

Limestone is formed from the deposition of calcium carbonate.

Is it possible for me to point out any clearer how absurd this statement is?
Time and time again it appears the greatest opposition to science is by those who understand it the least.

Trouble with too much science is that everyone ends up interpreting the data to suit their own set of "facts."

Ok let me point out the big difference between the two in such a way you will even understand it Ned. Coral is formed from living creatures, limestone is formed sometimes by dead creatures. Get it? Coral alive, limestone dead.

Wow, you are so informative. Is that why one is called biological limestone and the other, sedimentary limestone?

[Neandertal Ned]

Well, you assume that the first "species" of the genus Homo, "evolved" from a species of African apes in the genus of Australopithicus, don't you? At least that is what most Darwinists are theorizing these days. Where have you been, Artie?

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_1.htm

Oh. You said "you can only imagine a species of one genus "evolving" into the species of an entirely different animal genus". If you had meant that "a species of African apes in the genus of Australopithecus" evolved into "the first "species" of the genus Homo" that would have meant that you regarded "the first "species" of the genus Homo" to be animals like we do and not some especially made humans. But that was probably just a slip of the tongue. No need to pursue that further.

At least you are now aware that "evolution says that one species of one genus could evolve into a species of an entirely different animal genus," and where it says that!

And of course calling Australopithecus a species of African apes is not nice and something I wouldn't do either.

What is "not nice" about it and why wouldn't you do it? Darwinists call Homo saps and hominids like you a species of apes. You're a hominoid, according to them. Do you think some extinct nonhuman apes like the Australopiths deserve to be shown a little more courtesy and respect than you do?

"The immediate ancestors of humans were members of the genus Australopithecus. The australopithecines (or australopiths) were intermediate between apes and people." http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm

So you are saying that one species of the genus, Australopithicus, evolved into a species of an entirely different animal genus, Homo. That is what I said that evolution says. Both genera are classified by Darwinists as members of the Ape Familiy in the Kingdom of Animals. I am happy to see that you are beginning to see how Darwinist "theory" works, Artie.

Just out of curiosity, did God create "humans" and Australopithecus separately so that Australopithecus was regarded an animal?

What makes you think that Australopiths were not animals? Even Darwinists classify them in the Animal Kingdom.

[Artie]

What makes you think that Australopiths were not animals? Even Darwinists classify them in the Animal Kingdom.

We are all animals of course. Why don't we try another approach:

1, Australopithecus Africanus
2. Australopithecus Garhi
3. Homo Neandertalensis
4. Homo Habilis
5. Homo Sapiens

Just to make this perfectly clear: Which of these were especially made by god? Did He make number 1 separately and number 2 separately and number 3 separately and number 4 separately and number 5 separately but the last one in some extra special way?

[Neandertal Ned]

What makes you think that Australopiths were not animals? Even Darwinists classify them in the Animal Kingdom.

We are all animals of course. Why don't we try another approach:

1, Australopithecus Africanus
2. Australopithecus Garhi
3. Homo Neandertalensis
4. Homo Habilis
5. Homo Sapiens

Just to make this perfectly clear: Which of these were especially made by god? Did He make number 1 separately and number 2 separately and number 3 separately and number 4 separately and number 5 separately but the last one in some extra special way?

The Australopiths were animal "kinds."

Man (Homo means Man) was specially created as a 'living soul."

I neither recognize nor believe in the Darwinist division of Man into different or separate races or species.

[Furrowed Brow]

What makes you think that Australopiths were not animals? Even Darwinists classify them in the Animal Kingdom.

We are all animals of course. Why don't we try another approach:

1, Australopithecus Africanus
2. Australopithecus Garhi
3. Homo Neandertalensis
4. Homo Habilis
5. Homo Sapiens

Just to make this perfectly clear: Which of these were especially made by god? Did He make number 1 separately and number 2 separately and number 3 separately and number 4 separately and number 5 separately but the last one in some extra special way?

The Australopiths were animal "kinds."

Man (Homo means Man) was specially created as a 'living soul."

I neither recognize nor believe in the Darwinist division of Man into different or separate races or species.

If you do not trust the methodology that says sapiens and neandertals are different then how do you know australopithecus is different and not a homo? What methodology are you using to distinguish what you do counts as homo from that which you do not count?

Maybe australopithecus is a human but that is just how we looked back then.