Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mankind last won the day on October 29 2011

Mankind had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Mankind

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
  • What is your Worldview?
    Young Earth Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
  1. Mankind

    Can Mutations Create New Information?

    Good article, thanks. The parts that I thought were interesting were: How there must be information in creatures, that are not just in the DNA. Damaging mutations "cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution." And that some mutations "come about by unscrambling pre-existing information, some from decompressing packed information, some from turning on and off certain genes." That's a keeper!
  2. Mankind

    Living Fossils Destroy Evolution

    Brilliant post, thank you. I think this is the most living fossils I have seen all at one time. Does the book give an indication of how old the fossils are?
  3. Mankind

    Peer Reviewed Papers Coming!

    This is good. We need more studies on the capabilities of evolution because multiple changes have to take affect at the same time for a creature to go from say water to land adaptation. Has anyone seen evolution do more than one change at a time? I think that part of the problem is most biology evolutionists accept evolution to be true without question and they don’t test it to see if evolution can produce a man, or a monkey. The standard answer is, small steps lead to big changes, but has that been verified? Richard Lenski’s long term e.Coli experiment has produced 50,000 generations and no big changes have been noted, they are basically still e.Coli with some biochemistry changes but no morphology or anatomy changes.
  4. Mankind


    You have a good point, I might have jumped to a conclusion. What I was thinking is there are laws of logic and laws of thought, such as the law of non contradiction, and the OP mentioned that they “put two and two togetherâ€ÂÂ. If atheists want to use the absolute laws of logic without having a foundation for them then that is fine, I just think that it is a contradiction because from their worldview there is no foundation for laws of logic. I have a foundation for them with is God who created them.
  5. Mankind


    When speciation happens has a new form of creature every been seen as a result? If we have 30,000 species of butterflies, they are still in the same form, a butterfly.
  6. Mankind


    Welcome to the forum, but I have a serious question. You claimed to use logic in the OP, yet there is no foundation for logic in the atheist worldview. In your worldview there is no reason for your perception of logic to have any correspondence with objective reality. All you have is firing neurons in your brain and they could still be evolving to produce different perceptions of logic. Can you explain this apparent contradiction?
  7. Mankind


    Welcome to the forum. Evolution is part fact and part philosophy. Your job, if you decide to accept it, is to seperate the two.
  8. Mankind


    Welcome to the forum. Christianity embraces all races of people. I think even Christmas is celebrated in Japan. Do you know how that started?
  9. Mankind

    Inferno Says Hi

    Welcome to the forum. I'm not sure if you noticed or not but if you want individual liberty and freedom then you want to live in a country with freedom of religion. Atheist controlled countries have persecution and killing as their legacy. Maybe you want to rethink that anti-theist stance?
  10. Mankind


    Welcome to the forum. If you are atheist then you must believe in evolution, there is nothing else for you to believe in. See how your assumptions have already shaped your beliefs?
  11. Mankind


    Welcome Seek. It is refreshing to see a young person sitcking by the word of God. Evolution is all smoke and mirrors.
  12. The reason they say that is because that is what mainstream science says and they have to teach that. And mainstream science says that because they are married to naturalism, hence evolution must be true, unless there is some natural way, without a creator or God, for man to be made into whole beings at the beginning. Not likely after the big bang. Mainstream science throws out a creator or God at the beginning, they don't even consider it, so a natural evolution is the only explanation for things at this time. At this point in time, they consider evolution to be a fact up front, before any science is done, or any interpretation of data is done. Hence homology is evidence for evolution.
  13. 1. This is misleading. Evolution is not a theory, it is a model. A scientific theory is the strongest wording for something that can be duplicated and observed such as the theory of gravity, or the theory of electricity. 2. I see they don't give a definition of intermediate fossil so I'll go ahead and give it. It is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features to another fossil. In other words because an ape and man are similar then they are called intermediate fossils. There are no fossils that show a direct lineage to any other fossils or any ancestor / descendant relationship to any other fossil. 2. Homology is used as evidence for evolution when animals could have been created similar to live in a similar world. This shows a preconceived acceptance of evolution when interpreting data.
  14. Mankind

    The Brain

    When we see highly complex motors and switches we know that those things are created by an intelligence because that is what human intelligence creates. However we don't know, except through speculation that they can be created naturally. Hence the obvious default position is an intelligence is at work here like none mankind can fathom.
  15. Mankind

    You Have Been Lied To!

    Creationists aren’t trying to say that evolutionists don’t accept evolution, what they are trying to show is what evolutionists observe in the world matches the creationists worldview. If I quote Dawkins when he says that the world looks designed for a purpose, I am not trying to say that he still doesn’t accept evolution, or doesn’t have a reason to overcome that observation, I am merely showing that he agrees that the world looks designed for a purpose which validates the creationists worldview, so I am not lying. I didn’t say that Dawkins agreed that creation was true.

Important Information

Our Terms