The Darwin Delusion

[Carico]

When writing a story, an author has to make up his characters before he can go on with his story. Since Darwin had no evidence of his characters in the real world, he had to conjure them up in his imagination. He simply looked for an alternative to the biblical account of the creation of man and said; "If man wasn't created by God, then where could he have come from? I know, something that already exists like...another animal. Hey, yeah...which animal looks like a human? An ape!"

So here's how the story of evolution began:

Once upon a time 500,000 years ago... no 750,000 years ago... no 2,000,000 years ago...I'll skip the setting and go on.

Once upon a long time ago, an ape,..no a monkey, no a half-human- half monkey...I'll skip that part too and just call him an ancestor common to...humans...no monkeys..no humans and monkeys...no, humans and some other unknown animal.

Once upon a long time ago a common ancestor, no many common ancestors, yeah, I'll stick with that...mated with a monkey..no an ape...

Needless to say, a story that didn't start well can't end well either.

Nevertheless, because people were eagerly looking for an alternate explanation to God's creation, it wouldn't be hard at all for them to accept even a badly written fiction story that never got started.

Since Darwin never described his main characters, then he can't possibly know what they were capable of breeding.

But again, since the public wanted even a badly written story, then Darwin left it to the imaginations of his readers to finish the story. But as expected, one can't finish a story that never even began which is why of course, no one today still knows the main characters (common ancestors) of Darwin's story.

But what makes his story a delusion, is that Darwin actually believed that his characters existed!

It's bad enough when an author believes that characters he can describe existed, but when he believes that characters that he himself can't describe existed, then his story is even more delusional.

When God says that the wisdom of the world is foolishness in His sight, nothing proves Him right better than the story of evolution.

 

[Sunstone]

You are quite ignorant of the Theory of Evolution, aren't you? Are you a preacher, by any chance?

 

[Carico]

You are quite ignorant of the Theory of Evolution, aren't you? Are you a preacher, by any chance?

Everyone is ignorant of it since not even Darwin could describe his main characters. So no one else knows who they are either which of course means that no one can know what they were capable of breeding either. Darwin simply left his story up to the imaginations of his readers.

 

[Father Heathen]

If you don't like science, why are you sitting at a computer?

 

[Riverwolf]

When God says that the wisdom of the world is foolishness in His sight, nothing proves Him right better than the story of evolution.

Nope.

It's proven by people who are unwilling to consider alternative possibilities, and do research said alternatives, perform required experiments, or both. (Especially since the theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with wisdom, as wisdom is separate from science.)

If what you say is true, then there would have been NO evidence that evolution is true, and the theory would have died right then and there. The scientific community would have easily exposed it for the fraud that it would have been.

Yet there is evidence right in front of us everyday.

Besides, you clearly have no idea how Darwin first came up with his theory of natural selection. I'm not going to tell you what it is, because it's your responsibility to back up your argument by doing research ON BOTH SIDES. Research both sides of the argument objectively, which means without bias.

 

[Riverwolf]

Everyone is ignorant of it since not even Darwin could describe his main characters. So no one else knows who they are either which of course means that no one can know what they were capable of breeding either. Darwin simply left his story up to the imaginations of his readers.

Prove it.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Everyone is ignorant of it since not even Darwin could describe his main characters. So no one else knows who they are either which of course means that no one can know what they were capable of breeding either. Darwin simply left his story up to the imaginations of his readers.

It isn't just a story like the bible is. It's an actual educated theory. He doesn't need characters.

 

[Carico]

If you don't like science, why are you sitting at a computer?

When scientists agree with God, they're always right. When they disagree with God, they're always wrong. It's that simple. But the story of evolution isn't even logical by human standards since monkeys, apes, goats, giraffes and especially imaginary animals can't turn into people whether over 9 months or a gazillion years. All one has to understand is the simple birds and bees to know why.

 

[whereismynotecard]

When scientists agree with God, they're always right. When they disagree with God, they're always wrong. It's that simple. But the story of evolution isn't even logical by human standards since monkeys, apes, goats, giraffes and especially imaginary animals can't turn into people whether over 9 months or a gazillion years. All one has to understand is the simple birds and bees to know why.

I'm not sure it's going to be worth anyone's time to even try to talk to you. Part of having an educated opinion is to understand why others disagree with you. You don't have to believe what others believe, but you could at least listen to their reasoning and understand why they believe what they do. I think you also need to read up on evolution. You seem to know next to nothing about it. Either that or you have read about it and interpreted it completely wrong. You don't seem to understand the theory at all.

 

[Father Heathen]

When scientists agree with God, they're always right. When they disagree with God, they're always wrong. It's that simple. But the story of evolution isn't even logical by human standards since monkeys, apes, goats, giraffes and especially imaginary animals can't turn into people whether over 9 months or a gazillion years. All one has to understand is the simple birds and bees to know why.

A literal interpretation of superstitious tomes written by ancient primitives has nothing to do with "god".

 

[Carico]

I'm not sure it's going to be worth anyone's time to even try to talk to you. Part of having an educated opinion is to understand why others disagree with you. You don't have to believe what others believe, but you could at least listen to their reasoning and understand why they believe what they do. I think you also need to read up on evolution. You seem to know next to nothing about it. Either that or you have read about it and interpreted it completely wrong. You don't seem to understand the theory at all.

Those who disagree with me have to make up a history of their imaginations. But those who can't explain evolution either always say that I don't understand it. That's again because not even Darwin understood it as my example proved.

 

[Carico]

A literal interpretation of superstitious tomes written by ancient primitives has nothing to do with "god".

Oh, then please tell us the real history of the Jews. I'm sure your story will be at least as entertaining as the story of evolution is.

 

[Riverwolf]

Those who disagree with me have to make up a history of their imaginations.

So you're God?

But those who can't explain evolution either always say that I don't understand it. That's again because not even Darwin understood it as my example proved.

Who says we can't?

But why should we? We aren't your teachers.

 

[Riverwolf]

Oh, then please tell us the real history of the Jews. I'm sure your story will be at least as entertaining as the story of evolution is.

Your argument has nothing to do with Jewish history or the Christian version of the Tanakh.

You have yet to prove your argument, or even provide verifiable evidence, and therefore it is worthless until you do so.

 

[Carico]

So you're God?



Who says we can't?

But why should we? We aren't your teachers.

You haven't yet...and with good reason. But don't worry, I too grew up being taught evolution so I know it at least as well as any of you. The only difference is, I know why it's impossible and most of you don't.

 

[Riverwolf]

You haven't yet...and with good reason. But don't worry, I too grew up being taught evolution so I know it at least as well as any of you. The only difference is, I know why it's impossible and most of you don't.

Prove that you know as much as we do.

Tell us about it. Not with Christian bias, but as it is understood by scientists.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Those who disagree with me have to make up a history of their imaginations. But those who can't explain evolution either always say that I don't understand it. That's again because not even Darwin understood it as my example proved.

Your example didn't prove anything.

I'll try to explain evolution to you, if you think you can handle it:

First off: Natural Selection:
Natural Selection is a natural process where the strongest of a species survives. The weaker of the species have genetic traits which cause them to be less likely to reach adulthood. Even if they do reach adulthood, they might not be able to mate as easily, either because they have a lesser chance of beating out other competition or because they have a weak reproductive system as well. Because the strongest with the genetic traits appropriate for a certain region are more likely to reproduce, their traits are passed down to the next generation.

For example:
Zebra A has thick skin and strong muscles
Zebra B has thin skin and weak muscles

In order to live in the wild, the zebras need to have thick skin which prevents injury and skin cancer and need strong muscles to outrun predators.

Zebra B, having weak genetic traits, gets run down by a lion, and thus cannot pass on his genes.
Zebra A escapes the lion and passes on his genes to the next generation.

After some generations, there are no more zebras with thin skin and weak muscles, because all of the zebras with those traits were killed before they could reproduce and pass on their weak genes. The strongest of the zebras always survived and passed on their genes, so their offspring have their strong traits.


Are you with me so far?
If this makes sense to you, I'll continue.

 

[Riverwolf]

Your example didn't prove anything.

I'll try to explain evolution to you, if you think you can handle it:

First off: Natural Selection:
Natural Selection is a natural process where the strongest of a species survives. The weaker of the species have genetic traits which cause them to be less likely to reach adulthood. Even if they do reach adulthood, they might not be able to mate as easily, either because they have a lesser chance of beating out other competition or because they have a weak reproductive system as well. Because the strongest with the genetic traits appropriate for a certain region are more likely to reproduce, their traits are passed down to the next generation.

For example:
Zebra A has thick skin and strong muscles
Zebra B has thin skin and weak muscles

In order to live in the wild, the zebras need to have thick skin which prevents injury and skin cancer and need strong muscles to outrun predators.

Zebra B, having weak genetic traits, gets run down by a lion, and thus cannot pass on his genes.
Zebra A escapes the lion and passes on his genes to the next generation.

After some generations, there are no more zebras with thin skin and weak muscles, because all of the zebras with those traits were killed before they could reproduce and pass on their weak genes. The strongest of the zebras always survived and passed on their genes, so their offspring have their strong traits.


Are you with me so far?
If this makes sense to you, I'll continue.

Somehow I doubt he's going to read this.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Somehow I doubt he's going to read this.

Maybe I shouldn't even bother. I'm just going to waste my time.

 

[Carico]

Your example didn't prove anything.

I'll try to explain evolution to you, if you think you can handle it:

First off: Natural Selection:
Natural Selection is a natural process where the strongest of a species survives. The weaker of the species have genetic traits which cause them to be less likely to reach adulthood. Even if they do reach adulthood, they might not be able to mate as easily, either because they have a lesser chance of beating out other competition or because they have a weak reproductive system as well. Because the strongest with the genetic traits appropriate for a certain region are more likely to reproduce, their traits are passed down to the next generation.

For example:
Zebra A has thick skin and strong muscles
Zebra B has thin skin and weak muscles

In order to live in the wild, the zebras need to have thick skin which prevents injury and skin cancer and need strong muscles to outrun predators.

Zebra B, having weak genetic traits, gets run down by a lion, and thus cannot pass on his genes.
Zebra A escapes the lion and passes on his genes to the next generation.

After some generations, there are no more zebras with thin skin and weak muscles, because all of the zebras with those traits were killed before they could reproduce and pass on their weak genes. The strongest of the zebras always survived and passed on their genes, so their offspring have their strong traits.


Are you with me so far?
If this makes sense to you, I'll continue.

Again, I know what the story of evolution says and also why it's wrong. The weak and the strong co-exist in every species. Weak members can also breed fit and healthy offspring and strong members can also bread unfit and unhealthy offspring. And the fit and the weak both eventually die. So the "survival of the" fittest is a myth. You just blindly accept whatever is written in a science book without thinking it through. So try again.