162 replies to this topic

[Cassiterides]

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.

[Isabella]

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.

[Mankind]

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.

[jason777]

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.

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.

[Seth]

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.

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.

[jason78]

What evolutionists do is replace God with Time.

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.

[Isabella]

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.

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

[Adam Nagy]

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

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

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.

[Adam Nagy]

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.

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?

[Adam Nagy]

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".

Where did you read that frogs were the human ancestor?

[PhilC]

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.

[Mankind]

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.

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.

[PhilC]

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.

[PhilC]

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.

[jason78]

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?

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

[Mankind]

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.

[jason78]

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.

lol 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.