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]

What about them? They are of no concern to me.

You've spent a good amount of time presenting a dichotomy between god and science. Thus, I believe versions of spiritualism and faith that are compatible with reason, science and reality are very relevant

[Neandertal Ned]

What about them? They are of no concern to me.

You've spent a good amount of time presenting a dichotomy between god and science. Thus, I believe versions of spiritualism and faith that are compatible with reason, science and reality are very relevant

Ok. Then we cannot exclude creation scientists whose faith is compatible with reason, science and reality is very relevant

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... tists.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_o ... f_creation

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... tists.html

[derwood]

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.

true, but classifications such as that are more or less arbitrary. where does Australo end and Homo begin? A, B, or C? Lets say... B!

[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.

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!

I did not say that at all.

[derwood]

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?

Then apparently your Flood took place in North Dakota.

Like I said...

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

Neither do most Darwinists.

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

I'm not the one arguing about a geologic column. You folks are asking "Where is it???" when you SHOULD be arguing "It is all over!"

That the 'complete' geologic column is only found in a few places is a testament to the falsity of a young earth model.

[derwood]

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?

The fact that classification schemes are more or less arbitrary and there are few if any clear-cut demarcations between the different taxonomic ranks is actually supportive of the evolutionary process. If all life had been created as is, then there should be no argument at all about where species X belongs.

That is to say, a species of one genus did not, and does not, evolve into a new genus. It simply is the product of speciation, and we then decide to place it in a new category.

[derwood]

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.

The "difficulties", as far as I can tell, are simply the result of you accepting the disinformation you read at YEC websites at face value and having a limited understanding of evolution and the ancillary fields. You present links from ICR and such as if they were 100% true and accurate and unimpeachable. Yet in this thread, anyway, I don't see you 'debating' or even discussing anything, just "defending" the claims of these YEC sources.

That is not debating, that his hero worship.

[derwood]

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.

Good assessment.

[derwood]

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.

I don't understand your questions. How can religious beliefs be explained or even observed scientifically? How do you go about investigating religious beliefs scientifically, let alone explaining them? Religion is metaphysics, not physics. You can't use the scientific method to understand religion. You have to use another approach.

But you are not talking about mere religious beliefs.

If the Flood actually happened, then why is there no evidence for it?

If the Flood really happened, why do no animals indicate a bottleneck ~4500 years ago in their genes?

If the flood and creation really are just a religious belief, why do you even care about the evidence for evolution?

[Neandertal Ned]

Then apparently your Flood took place in North Dakota.

Apparently so since it explains the existence of the geologic column there.

I'm not the one arguing about a geologic column. You folks are asking "Where is it???" when you SHOULD be arguing "It is all over!"

How can you argue that the column is "all over" when there is no evidence that it is all over? There are stratified layers of rock all over the world but none of them can be said to represent the chronological layers which are supposed to be in the so-called "geologic column."

That the 'complete' geologic column is only found in a few places is a testament to the falsity of a young earth model.

False. It is a testament to the falsity of a local geological model being used to represent the chronological order of sedimentary rock formations all over the earth.