Evolution is a fact?!

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution is a fact?

Yes.

And a theory.

Today Charles Darwin exists as a dead body. But, Darwin does exist. How? As a dead body. Thus, the question arises:

When will Charles Darwin begin his proven path of evolution from non-living to living? "Evolution is a fact", he says.

I don't even know how to respond to this gibberish.
I'll just have a meme:

And today Darwin exists. In the form of a dead body, gases, liquids. Perhaps when you turn on the faucet in the kitchen, you are drinking a molecule from Darwin's body. So, Darwin exists and you can ask your common sense when Darwin will start the path he has proven [through works of his followers] from the inanimate state to the living.

Evolution doesn't address the origins of life.

1. people are still animals (one of the species of apes;

Off course people are animals. Mammals. And idd apes.

however, this is self-contradiction: there was no evolution if humans are still animals),

Here, have another facepalm meme:

They said earlier that man descended from an ape. Now they say differently: man is still an ape. But then there is no evolution if we are still animals.

Evolution doesn't say animals will evolve into non-animals.
In fact, it says the exact opposite: you can't outgrow your ancestry.

Our ancestors were apes. So we are apes. And our off spring ad infinitum will be apes.
Just like we are mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes.

2. black lives must be mercilessly oppressed,

Evolution says no such thing.

3. schizophrenics and beggars must be castrated,

Evolution says no such thing.

4. unwanted babies must be killed already in the womb; and that the

Evolution says no such thing.

5. wildlife came without God's miracle from the non-living matter (and therefore life on Mars was in the distant past).

Evolution says no such thing.

But God does not believe in godless Evolution, God is the Creator (it means, God is the most important Creationist).

Your beliefs are irrelevant to the evidence.
Your strawmen possibly even less.

[/QUOTE]

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe in literal 6 days Creation. I am Young Earth Creationist, like Martyr Kent Hovind.

That would be this guy

Great rolemodel, you got there.

 

[Valjean]

To avoid mistakes, I simply say: humans are some apes in Darwinism. Thus, there was no evolution from animal to human.

What the heck is "Darwinism?"
Why do you say human's didn't evolve? Where did we come from? Were we marooned here from a UFO? Were we magically poofed into being, fully formed?
Why do we have so many shared physical and genetic features with other animals?

 

[questfortruth]

What the heck is "Darwinism?"
Why do you say human's didn't evolve? Where did we come from? Were we marooned here from a UFO? Were we magically poofed into being, fully formed?
Why do we have so many shared physical and genetic features with other animals?

My Religion explains it all well: God is Creationist like Kent Hovind. The miracle of Creation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My Religion explains it all well: God is Creationist like Kent Hovind. The miracle of Creation.

That's an assertion, not an explanation.

And it's an assertion that flies in the face of all available evidence.


PS: whenever I see someone mention "Dr Dino", let alone twice, as if he is some kind of authority in anything but quackery and fiscal fraud, my first thought almost by default is "this guy is a poe".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes i know, we evolved alongside other apes from a common ancestor which was an ape like creature

No, I need to correct this. Our common ancestor was not an "ape like creature". It was an ape. There is no "change of kind" in evolution.

And in fact by cladistics we are even "monkeys". If one calls both Old World and New World simians "monkeys" then by the same classification we are too. This is a matter of linguistics. This is an English problem since in some other languages I have been told that the term "monkeys" as we use it does not exist. Modern day classification is done more by cladistics since we do not have the problem of artificial human classification systems. Cladistics is based upon descent, not on human names for animals.

 

[Valjean]

That explains a lot.

Upon what exactly do you base your belief that humans are not animals?

His own vegetative state, perhaps?

 

[Valjean]

No, I need to correct this. Our common ancestor was not an "ape like creature". It was an ape. There is no "change of kind" in evolution.

And in fact by cladistics we are even "monkeys". If one calls both Old World and New World simians "monkeys" then by the same classification we are too. This is a matter of linguistics. This is an English problem since in some other languages I have been told that the term "monkeys" as we use it does not exist. Modern day classification is done more by cladistics since we do not have the problem of artificial human classification systems. Cladistics is based upon descent, not on human names for animals.

Are you trying to make a monkey out of poor QfT?

 

[questfortruth]

That's an assertion, not an explanation.

The Miracle of Creation is the scientific explanation for any theist because knowledge of a person is defined as information, which has his God. The Atheists have a god - "nonexisting god" is his name. Thus, the atheists are sure, that they have a lack of faith.

 

[ChristineM]

No, I need to correct this. Our common ancestor was not an "ape like creature". It was an ape. There is no "change of kind" in evolution.

And in fact by cladistics we are even "monkeys". If one calls both Old World and New World simians "monkeys" then by the same classification we are too. This is a matter of linguistics. This is an English problem since in some other languages I have been told that the term "monkeys" as we use it does not exist. Modern day classification is done more by cladistics since we do not have the problem of artificial human classification systems. Cladistics is based upon descent, not on human names for animals.

Ok, tell the anthropologists then.

It of course depends how far we go back, apes evolved from monkeys in the early miocene epoch, the transition from monkey to ape was not instantaneous.

 

[Valjean]

The Miracle of Creation is the scientific explanation for any theist because knowledge of a person is defined as information, which has his God. The Atheists have a god - "nonexisting god" is his name. Thus, the atheists are sure, that they have a lack of faith.

This is incoherent babble. Could you clarify?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, tell the anthropologists then.

It of course depends how far we go back, apes evolved from monkeys in the early miocene epoch, the transition from monkey to ape was not instantaneous.

Some anthropologists are using incorrect terminology. This is ultimately a matter for biologists.

Apes are still "monkeys". There is no evolving from. Look at it this way, no matter how many generations exist after our time your descendants will still be your descendants. They never will evolve to the point where they are not descended from you. Cladistics acknowledges this fact. The Linnaean classification system was ultimately creationist based so it cannot properly handle this concept. But as I said, even Linnaeus could see that humans were apes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you trying to make a monkey out of poor QfT?

LOL, I am far too late for that.

 

[ChristineM]

Some anthropologists are using incorrect terminology. This is ultimately a matter for biologists.

Apes are still "monkeys". There is no evolving from. Look at it this way, no matter how many generations exist after our time your descendants will still be your descendants. They never will evolve to the point where they are not descended from you. Cladistics acknowledges this fact. The Linnaean classification system was ultimately creationist based so it cannot properly handle this concept. But as I said, even Linnaeus could see that humans were apes.

Its not a point of what we evolve in to but what we came from. Some 7 million years ago apes and monkeys separated. As i said, the transition was not instantaneous, for thousands of years, creatures with ape and monkey features (ape like creatures) existed

After the transition you can say specifically ape. Before there is no fine line

 

[questfortruth]

This is incoherent babble. Could you clarify?

knowledge of a person is defined as information, which has his God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its not a point of what we evolve in to but what we came from. Some 7 million years ago apes and monkeys separated. As i said, the transition was not instantaneous, for thousands of years, creatures with ape and monkey features (ape like creatures) existed

After the transition you can say specifically ape. Before there is no fine line

The timeline is off a bit. The separation of New World from Old World monkeys occurred about 40 million years ago:

New World vs Old World Monkeys - Monkey Facts and Information.

That ancient ancestor would have been a "monkey". Now let's go down the evolutionary line a bit:

About 25 million years ago the split between what are now Old World Monkeys and Apes occurred. That ancestor would have been a "monkey" too:

Scientists Discover Oldest Evidence of Split Between Old World Monkeys and Apes.

We are Great Apes, they split off from the other apes about 14 million years ago and we split off from what became the chimps about 7 million years ago:

Hominidae

We agree in principal, we only disagree in terminology. Biology is slowly switching over to cladistics because the "now come there are still monkeys?" question never arises. There are still "monkeys" because any descendant of a monkey, including us, is a monkey.


By the way, changes of this sort tend to be generational. People will often continue to use the system that they were brought up in even if they can see the superiority of a new system they will continue to use the old system out of habit.

 

[ChristineM]

The timeline is off a bit. The separation of New World from Old World monkeys occurred about 40 million years ago:

New World vs Old World Monkeys - Monkey Facts and Information.

That ancient ancestor would have been a "monkey". Now let's go down the evolutionary line a bit:

About 25 million years ago the split between what are now Old World Monkeys and Apes occurred. That ancestor would have been a "monkey" too:

Scientists Discover Oldest Evidence of Split Between Old World Monkeys and Apes.

We are Great Apes, they split off from the other apes about 14 million years ago and we split off from what became the chimps about 7 million years ago:

Hominidae

We agree in principal, we only disagree in terminology. Biology is slowly switching over to cladistics because the "now come there are still monkeys?" question never arises. There are still "monkeys" because any descendant of a monkey, including us, is a monkey.


By the way, changes of this sort tend to be generational. People will often continue to use the system that they were brought up in even if they can see the superiority of a new system they will continue to use the old system out of habit.

Typo, should have been 27

Yes and go back a 2 or 3 billion year's and we evolved from cyanobacteria.

Cladistics is to general for my liking

 

[Subduction Zone]

Typo, should have been 27

Yes and go back a 2 or 3 billion year's and we evolved from cyanobacteria.

Cladistics is to general for my liking

Actually at that point cladistics has broken down due to the early "tree of life" being more of a bush. At its base our line is extremely complicated due to various gene sharing strategies.


In fact the furthers one can go is to say that we are eukaryotes. Other than that when it comes to cyanobacteria all we can say is that we are both life forms.

Cladisitics works extremely well for anything from the Cambrian forward.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Miracle of Creation is the scientific explanation

1. scientific explanations account for all the data and makes testable predictions. Your "explanation" does neither

2. it's not an explanation. it's a bare assertion that flies in the face of evidence.

The Atheists have a god - "nonexisting god" is his name.

That makes about as much sense as saying to you have an undetectable dragon that carries the name "nonexisting dragon".

Hilariously absurd.
So hilarious that I can not take it seriously.

Thus, the atheists are sure, that they have a lack of faith.

Yes, I'm sure that I don't believe obviously false things for no reason at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

knowledge of a person is defined as information, which has his God.

He asked you to clarify the word salad. He didn't ask you to simply repeat it.