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]

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.

this flatly contradicts your OP. Which is it--there is evidence against evolution, or there is not???

Or are you engaging in double-standards?

Not that I know.

are you sure??

[Artie]

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!

Yes, isn't that what you believe since he couldn't have evolved? Or was he made out of dirt like the rest of the animals?

[Artie]

Nice work, Artie.

Thank you. I learn new things all the time.

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?

What do you mean see the light?

[Neandertal Ned]

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.

this flatly contradicts your OP. Which is it--there is evidence against evolution, or there is not???

But you stipulated that "Websites/photos/published articles don't count" and specifically ruled them when demanding that the evidence should be "held in your hand/seen with your own eyes." Remember?

Or are you engaging in double-standards?

Not that I know.

are you sure??

I believe so. How about you? Are you engaging in double-standards?

[Neandertal Ned]

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!

Yes, isn't that what you believe since he couldn't have evolved?

I just haven't seen any evidence of it. Have you? Which genus of Hominidae have you seen evidence of Homo "evolving" from?

Or was he made out of dirt like the rest of the animals?

Adam was created out of the dust of the ground, if memory serves me right. Eve out of Adam's rib. I have no idea how God created so many kinds of animals in one day.

[Neandertal Ned]

Nice work, Artie.

Thank you. I learn new things all the time.

Me too. You are really helping me to understand how evolution works, Artie, and I do appreciate it.

What do you mean see the light?

The light of evolution. What else? You didn't even know that the only way for one genus to evolve into a susequently new genus would be for at least one species of the old genus to "evolve" (there's that magic word again) into at least one species of the new genus for the new genus to even appear in the fossil record. You have been so obessed with the evolution of "species" that you apparently forgot or never knew that genara have got to "evolve" too in order for the whole "process" of evolution from amoeaba to Man to work. No evolution of genera - no evolution! Don't lose sight of the forest now, just because of a few trees.

[Boots]

But you stipulated that "Websites/photos/published articles don't count" and specifically ruled them when demanding that the evidence should be "held in your hand/seen with your own eyes." Remember?

I was responding to your demand of "show me the fossils." I was trying to determine whether you were demanding the same proof from the side you disagree with, as the side you agree with.

never mind. I'm finding you far to difficult to engage.

[Neandertal Ned]

But you stipulated that "Websites/photos/published articles don't count" and specifically ruled them when demanding that the evidence should be "held in your hand/seen with your own eyes." Remember?

I was responding to your demand of "show me the fossils." I was trying to determine whether you were demanding the same proof from the side you disagree with, as the side you agree with.

never mind. I'm finding you far to difficult to engage.

Well, if you don't care to discuss or debate the difficulties then we shall never make any progress. I regard the debates as an opportunity to learn what I want to learn so that I can increase my understanding of why my opponents say and believe what they do. I have no idea what your motives are or the reason for your debating.

[Wyvern]

Adam was created out of the dust of the ground, if memory serves me right. Eve out of Adam's rib. I have no idea how God created so many kinds of animals in one day.

Hows is this possible, if as you claim Adam was the progenitor for the entire human race and he was made out of dust why is it silica which is a major component of dust an incredibly insignificant component of the makeup of mankind? How do you propose a woman is produced from the rib of a male? Why is it you ascribe to this hypothesis and what evidence is there to support it? Do you consider this to be scientific in any way? And if so how.

[Boots]

never mind. I'm finding you far to difficult to engage.

Well, if you don't care to discuss or debate the difficulties then we shall never make any progress. I regard the debates as an opportunity to learn what I want to learn so that I can increase my understanding of why my opponents say and believe what they do. I have no idea what your motives are or the reason for your debating.

My motives are very similar to yours--find out how my opponents think, why they say and believe what they do. I only got invovled in this thread to pin down something you said, but it's not getting anywhere.

At least 2 times in this thread, you asked your opponents to provide the actual fossils they were speaking of. So I asked you, what physical evidence you've seen to validate your views. I specified no 2nd hand materials, because that's what YOU specified--the actual fossils. You came back with the answer that you don't have any. This proves at least two things to me.

1) You are, in fact, engaging in double standards: demanding a higher bar of evidence from your opponents than you can provide for your own view.

2) Your OP--that there exists plenty of evidence against evolution--is *highly* suspect.

I can only conclude (unless/until these points are addressed) that you are not being completley honest or intellectually rigorous in this discussion. THIS is why I said you're too hard to engage for me to bother continuing.