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?

[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.

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?

I go by genera alone since there is no reliable way to determine and establish a species of humans from the fossils. I don't even classify you as Homo sapiens since I far prefer to use the English word, Man, and do not consider the fossils of Neandertal Man to be anything other than the remains of Man from the Ice Age.

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

Speak for yourself. I have never looked like a hairy knuckle-walking nonhuman ape at any time. Neither has my African-American wife.

[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?

The Australopiths were animal "kinds."Man (Homo means Man) was specially created as a 'living soul."

Now we are getting to the core of the issue:

Homo sapiens
Homo gautengensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo antecessor
Homo ergaster
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis

Did God create these separately, did He create only Homo sapiens as a "living soul" or what exactly did He do?

[Artie]

Speak for yourself. I have never looked like a hairy knuckle-walking nonhuman ape at any time. Neither has my African-American wife.

Me neither. My ancestors probably did. So what? Are you offended because we don't see you as a super duper extra specially made creature by a god while the rest of us obviously evolved? Can't your superior ego handle that you are no better than the rest of us?

[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."

Now we are getting to the core of the issue:

Homo sapiens
Homo gautengensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo antecessor
Homo ergaster
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis

Did God create these separately, did He create only Homo sapiens as a "living soul" or what exactly did He do?

As I have already pointed out in a previous post, Homo means Man in English so all of those Homo "species" above are artificially created by Man (created by an act of classification alone) and God created Man alone as a "living soul."

[Goat]

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."

Now we are getting to the core of the issue:

Homo sapiens
Homo gautengensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo antecessor
Homo ergaster
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis

Did God create these separately, did He create only Homo sapiens as a "living soul" or what exactly did He do?

As I have already pointed out in a previous post, Homo means Man in English so all of those Homo "species" above are artificially created by Man (created by an act of classification alone) and God created Man alone as a "living soul."

Uh. That is entirely inadequate, and shows a vast set of blinders and lack of knowledge on 'HOW, WHY, and it is making unsupported claims too.

Yes, the names for the species are artifical, including the genus. Do you know why there is the distinction?

Can you show that it is "God created Man alone as a Living Soul", or could it be that Man created God out of the desire to know the world? What tangible and objective evidence do you have of 'God creating man' that can rule out 'Man created the concept of God'?

[Neandertal Ned]

Speak for yourself. I have never looked like a hairy knuckle-walking nonhuman ape at any time. Neither has my African-American wife.

Me neither. My ancestors probably did. So what?

Probably? You're not sure?

Are you offended because we don't see you as a super duper extra specially made creature by a god while the rest of us obviously evolved?

I'm not offended by your claim that you do not see me or my wife as "super duper, extra, specially made" creatures by a god, but by your vulgar insistance on dragging us down to your level of self-imaging when referring to our ancestors. Not that we worship our ancestors but millions of people do, and I am sure that they also find your allusions to their ancestors as hairy, knuckle-walking nonhuman apes as equally offensive.

Can't your superior ego handle that you are no better than the rest of us?

How would I be "better" than the rest of you if my ancestors did not look like yours?

[Neandertal Ned]

As I have already pointed out in a previous post, Homo means Man in English so all of those Homo "species" above are artificially created by Man (created by an act of classification alone) and God created Man alone as a "living soul."

Uh. That is entirely inadequate, and shows a vast set of blinders and lack of knowledge on 'HOW, WHY, and it is making unsupported claims too.

I think it is entirely adequate and shows more knowledge of what is being discussed than anything you have demonstrated.

Yes, the names for the species are artifical, including the genus. Do you know why there is the distinction?

The artificial distinctions and classifications of Man into multiple so-called "species" serves to create the illusion of each so-called "species" evolving from a former one. Darwin predicted that humans originated from a species of "anthropomorphous" African apes so Darwinists have had to create an artificial parade of several "species" which are claimed to show the "evolution" of nonhuman African apes into humans. Why else would anyone want to divide human fossils up into different and separate species?

Can you show that it is "God created Man alone as a Living Soul", or could it be that Man created God out of the desire to know the world? What tangible and objective evidence do you have of 'God creating man' that can rule out 'Man created the concept of God'?

The Holy Bible. Pick it up sometime. It is real, tangible and objective evidence of God's Word. What more or better evidence do you need?

[Artie]

Now we are getting to the core of the issue:

Homo sapiens
Homo gautengensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo antecessor
Homo ergaster
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis

Did God create these separately, did He create only Homo sapiens as a "living soul" or what exactly did He do?

As I have already pointed out in a previous post, Homo means Man in English so all of those Homo "species" above are artificially created by Man (created by an act of classification alone) and God created Man alone as a "living soul."

Ah. You are saying there are no differences between for example homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens and those were all especially created by God as humans while for example Australopithecus was created by God as just another animal? Where do you draw the exact line then between especially created by God as human and created by God as just another animal? Which of them is what?

[Artie]

Speak for yourself. I have never looked like a hairy knuckle-walking nonhuman ape at any time. Neither has my African-American wife.

Me neither. My ancestors probably did. So what?

Probably? You're not sure?

For all I know there might be a possibility that we are a result of aliens interfering with the genome of course, however unlikely.

Are you offended because we don't see you as a super duper extra specially made creature by a god while the rest of us obviously evolved?

I'm not offended by your claim that you do not see me or my wife as "super duper, extra, specially made" creatures by a god, but by your vulgar insistance on dragging us down to your level of self-imaging when referring to our ancestors.

That is the same thing isn't it? It isn't dignified enough for you super duper, extra, specially made creatures by a god to be compared with lowly ape-descendants like us? You think you are on some superior level to us being created by a god and all, right? You see, it's not about us dragging you down to our level, it's about you elevating yourself high above your station having such an inflated opinion of yourself that you think you must have been created by a god. I think we all can see where you're coming from now. Having evolved is simply not good enough for you. Just narcissism and vanity. Well, this got a bit too personal so I won't take it any further. Back to impersonal OP discussions.

[Neandertal Ned]

Now we are getting to the core of the issue:

Homo sapiens
Homo gautengensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo antecessor
Homo ergaster
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis

Did God create these separately, did He create only Homo sapiens as a "living soul" or what exactly did He do?

As I have already pointed out in a previous post, Homo means Man in English so all of those Homo "species" above are artificially created by Man (created by an act of classification alone) and God created Man alone as a "living soul."

Ah. You are saying there are no differences between for example homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens and those were all especially created by God as humans while for example Australopithecus was created by God as just another animal?

By Jove, I think you've got it!

Where do you draw the exact line then between especially created by God as human and created by God as just another animal? Which of them is what?

As you distinguished between them yourself, Man (human) was specially created by God as a living soul, and all other creatures were simply created as animals. You know that. Why play dumb?