Jump to content


Photo

Why Evolution Is A Fairytale


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#1 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 12 July 2010 - 03:11 PM

Many evolutionists here don't understand why the theory of evolution is a fairytale. So here i can explain:

FROG -----------------> PRINCE = Fairytale

Note: In case you don't know what this is, it's a fairytale called 'The Frog Prince', best known by Grimm's version of the classic tale. In the tale a princess kisses a frog magically transforming him into a handsome prince.

Now consider the following:

FROG --------> 300 millions years ----> PRINCE = Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is the frog and prince fairytale, just with the added 300 million years.

That is why evolution is a fairytale.

#2 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 July 2010 - 04:02 PM

Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it claim that frogs became humans. Perhaps I should explain to you what an oversimplification is, Cassiterides. It’s a type of strawman argument and a poor debate tactic.

#3 Guest_cms13ca_*

Guest_cms13ca_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 July 2010 - 04:22 PM

Many evolutionists here don't understand why the theory of evolution is a fairytale. So here i can explain:

FROG -----------------> PRINCE = Fairytale

Note: In case you don't know what this is, it's a fairytale called 'The Frog Prince', best known by Grimm's version of the classic tale. In the tale a princess kisses a frog magically transforming him into a handsome prince.

Now consider the following:

FROG --------> 300 millions years ----> PRINCE = Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is the frog and prince fairytale, just with the added 300 million years.

That is why evolution is a fairytale.

View Post


I would like to cite your source to where evolution states that.

Biological evolution is:

FROG--------|
COMMON ANCESTOR
PRINCE------|

HUMAN--------|
COMMON ANCESTOR
CHIMP---------|

DOG--------|
COMMON ANCESTOR
CAT---------|

#4 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 12 July 2010 - 08:11 PM

This is a good post even though most evolutionists won't get it's meaning entirely and will focus on "humans didn't come from frogs". That really doesn't matter in order to understand the meaning of the post. I understand it clearly.

What evolutionists do is replace God with Time. They take a type of creature and say millions of years later we get these types of creatures that we see. That is not observable so it isn't science, it is imagination.

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 July 2010 - 08:47 PM

Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it claim that frogs became humans. Perhaps I should explain to you what an oversimplification is, Cassiterides. It’s a type of strawman argument and a poor debate tactic.

View Post


The theory says: Frogs + mutations + natural selection + 300 million years = Humans

Oversimplified or not, the theory does say that frogs change into people. It's not a strawman, but what they believe.

#6 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 12 July 2010 - 09:05 PM

The theory says: Frogs + mutations + natural selection + 300 million years = Humans

Oversimplified or not, the theory does say that frogs change into people. It's not a strawman, but what they believe.

View Post


The theory says: Frogs + mutations (an observable scientific discovery) + natural selection (another observable scientific discovery) + 300 million years (a most important ingredient of which without we couldn't even have a story, yes the "Time" God) + lots and lots of imagination using the two well known ingredients and one fanciful one = Humans

Sorry Jason777, didn't mean to correct you, but that was quite oversimplified. :lol:

#7 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 July 2010 - 09:10 PM

What evolutionists do is replace God with Time.

View Post


What scientists do is replace ignorance with knowledge. This has the unfortunate side effect of limiting what gods can do and where they can live.

#8 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 July 2010 - 09:27 PM

The theory says: Frogs + mutations + natural selection + 300 million years = Humans

Oversimplified or not, the theory does say that frogs change into people. It's not a strawman, but what they believe.

View Post


Where did you read that frogs were the human ancestor? Frogs are alive today. They didn’t “change into” anything.

#9 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 July 2010 - 01:26 AM

Where did you read that frogs were the human ancestor? Frogs are alive today. They didn’t “change into” anything.

View Post

We're talking about 'old world' frogs which branched off. :P

It doesn't matter that they exist today anymore than it matters that monkeys and chimps exist today. All we have to do is smear the conversation with evo-speak and the doubt just melts away.

#10 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 July 2010 - 01:28 AM

What scientists do is replace ignorance with knowledge.  This has the unfortunate side effect of limiting what gods can do and where they can live.

View Post

Unfortunately, it's often ignored how often scientists, through faulty philosophy, replace knowledge with ignorance. Are we really getting smarter or is it all just relative?

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 July 2010 - 01:30 AM

This is a good post even though most evolutionists won't get it's meaning entirely and will focus on "humans didn't come from frogs".

View Post

Where did you read that frogs were the human ancestor?

View Post

:P

#12 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 13 July 2010 - 02:04 AM

Some fossils:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3485

Physiology:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3484

This is some of the evidence that we share a common ancestor with amphibians.

#13 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 13 July 2010 - 05:49 AM

Some fossils:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3485

Physiology:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3484

This is some of the evidence that we share a common ancestor with amphibians.

View Post


Any fossil "evidence" has been destroyed here:
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3209
The fossil evidence comes down to homology, they have a mosaic of features so evolutionists point to that as evidence of a common ancestor. There are no fossils in the whole world that show an ancestor / descendant relationship.

As for Phsiology, all life forms have to live in the same world so we would expect in the creation model that they have similar functioning systems to eat the same foods, and drink the same water, move over the same terrain, etc... It comes down to your presuppositions again, your worldview, how you see the world is how you interpret the evidence.

#14 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 July 2010 - 05:57 AM

As for Phsiology, all life forms have to live in the same world so we would expect in the creation model that they have similar functioning systems to eat the same foods, and drink the same water, move over the same terrain, etc...  It comes down to your presuppositions again, your worldview, how you see the world is how you interpret the evidence.

View Post

So... are you claiming that the similarities in bone structure between whales and other mammals is due to moving over the same terrain?
Or is it due to eating the same foods?
Or perhaps drinking the same water?

#15 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 13 July 2010 - 05:58 AM

Please, Mankind, would you mind dealing with the specific details in the threads provided, so that we can discuss it there? I continually say that creationism answers the general point but fails in the detail. Your comment "all life forms have to live in the same world so we would expect in the creation model that they have similar functioning systems to eat the same foods, and drink the same water, move over the same terrain, etc..." is a general assertion, not a detailed analysis of the evidence.

The thread you point to has some details in it that I added which nobody responded to (right near the end). I opened a new thread to discuss that called 'odd one out' but nobody has responded to that too. You cannot claim that the fossil evidence has been dealt with when these points remain unanswered.

I know people are busy, so if they are not responded to I will try not to read anything in to that, but to claim "Any fossil "evidence" has been destroyed" without responding is going too far.

#16 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 13 July 2010 - 06:09 AM

So... are you claiming that the similarities in bone structure between whales and other mammals is due to moving over the same terrain?
Or is it due to eating the same foods?
Or perhaps drinking the same water?


Exactly! The general rule "they all live a similar life" breaks down when the specifics get discussed.

#17 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:52 AM

Unfortunately, it's often ignored how often scientists, through faulty philosophy, replace knowledge with ignorance. Are we really getting smarter or is it all just relative?

View Post


I think that footprints on the moon say we're getting smarter. Or at least we were in the 60's. Maybe all that free love and pot wasn't such a bad idea after all :P

#18 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:55 AM

Unfortunately, it's often ignored how often scientists, through faulty philosophy, replace knowledge with ignorance. Are we really getting smarter or is it all just relative?

View Post


What knowledge has been replaced by ignorance. You live in a 1st world society that is the product of science, not religion.

#19 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 13 July 2010 - 10:03 PM

Let's get back to the OP. I would like to see all this evolution starting with the frog to Prince. I want to see every random mutation that happened including the ones that weren't selected to get to this Prince. If this is a fact then science should have all this information.

#20 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 14 July 2010 - 01:35 AM

Let's get back to the OP.  I would like to see all this evolution starting with the frog to Prince.  I want to see every random mutation that happened including the ones that weren't selected to get to this Prince.  If this is a fact then science should have all this information.

View Post


lol :blink: So would I!

Actually, I'd also like to see every nuclear fusion event that has ever taken place in the Sun. If nuclear fusion and atoms are a fact then science should have all that information too.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users