The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I conclude that there is more to it (life) than natural said forces at work

Yes, I know, but it wasn't a conclusion. It was an unjustified premise. There are no known forces, objects, or processes that aren't natural.

some have said humans are fish

They're using a different definition of fish, which includes all descendants of fish - a definition not used outside of technical discussions. It's not helpful to tell somebody like you that a human is a fish.

Creationists also frequently deny that humans are animal and apes, but they are using lay definitions of those words as well, where animals and apes are found in cages in zoos and don't include the visitors looking at them.

Don't get hung up in nomenclature. Call these whatever you like:

 

[YoursTrue]

But the whole problem here is that you believe in magic, while your colloquists here largely understand the world in terms of science.

Not at all -- the more I have examined the posts here as well as the theory, I realize it's you that believes in magic. (Have a good one...)

 

[YoursTrue]

View attachment 99506View attachment 99507

Well, there is at least one poster here who is convinced she (or he) can connect with spirit mediums. Would you say that's included in natural processes?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I know, but it wasn't a conclusion. It was an unjustified premise. There are no known forces, objects, or processes that aren't natural.

They're using a different definition of fish, which includes all descendants of fish - a definition not used outside of technical discussions. It's not helpful to tell somebody like you that a human is a fish.

Creationists also frequently deny that humans are animal and apes, but they are using lay definitions of those words as well, where animals and apes are found in cages in zoos and don't include the visitors looking at them.

I learned in school that humans are animals. And that evolution is -- true without question. I believed it for a long time until yes, I began studying the Bible, seeing what it says, and recognizing that evolution does not do the job it's purported to do, that is, follow the real lineage from the beginning (of life on earth), for several reasons. One is because the actual mechanics are not apparent. Fossils may lead one to believe these organisms changed by "physical forces" over time (I was almost inclined to say by magic, which it is, in essence, by the theory, but few would admit that), but there is absolutely no verification that the biological procedures pertaining to the entire theory of evolution as starting from -- ?? whatever -- happened as some claim. (By the way, you and others may claim it's all natural but that doesn't mean that there is not a higher force that is not "natural." Take it as you will. Now I am convinced that only God's spirit can help a person to understand/ come to that conclusion...) So then, please do tell, if you can, what you believe happened when vegetation started and animal life. Did they have the same "universal common ancestor"? What do scientists say? By the way, I appreciate your diligence in trying to assert (dare I not say 'prove') your case.

 

[YoursTrue]

P.S. @It Aint Necessarily So The pictures you present do show similarity. In some cases. But again -- that does not mean that it all happened without someone (with a capital S) behind it all.

 

[Argentbear]

Fossils may lead one to believe these organisms changed by "physical forces" over time (I was almost inclined to say by magic, which it is, in essence, by the theory, but few would admit that), but there is absolutely no verification that the biological procedures pertaining to the entire theory of evolution as starting from -- ?? whatever -- happened as some claim. (By the way, you and others may claim it's all natural but that doesn't mean that there is not a higher force that is not "natural."

You mean magic

 

[blü 2]

Not at all -- the more I have examined the posts here as well as the theory, I realize it's you that believes in magic. (Have a good one...)

Oops!

You forgot to tell me the process by which the EM spectrum was brought into being in Genesis!

 

[Valjean]

Not at all -- the more I have examined the posts here as well as the theory, I realize it's you that believes in magic. (Have a good one...)

Define magic.

 

[Valjean]

I learned in school that humans are animals. And that evolution is -- true without question. I believed it for a long time until yes, I began studying the Bible, seeing what it says, and recognizing that evolution does not do the job it's purported to do, that is, follow the real lineage from the beginning (of life on earth), for several reasons. One is because the actual mechanics are not apparent.

The various mechanisms of evolution are glaringly apparent. They're easily observed and easily demonstrated. People have been successfully using the selective mechanism for millennia in agriculture and husbandry.
The mechanisms of evolution are described by the theory of evolution.

Fossils may lead one to believe these organisms changed by "physical forces" over time (I was almost inclined to say by magic, which it is, in essence, by the theory,

No, magic posits no physical mechanism. The theory describes several physical mechanisms in detail. Everything is understandable and commonsense.
The ToE is based solidly on demonstrable, objective, empirical evidence. Your alternative is unevidenced and based on conjecture and folklore.
It's the religious miracles that are the magical myths.

but few would admit that), but there is absolutely no verification that the biological procedures pertaining to the entire theory of evolution as starting from -- ?? whatever -- happened as some claim.

Stop it, YT!
The mechanisms and evidence has been explained to you a hundred times. Did you forget it all, are you deliberately ignoring it, or are you really this obtuse?

(By the way, you and others may claim it's all natural but that doesn't mean that there is not a higher force that is not "natural." Take it as you will.

That may be, but this 'higher force' has left no trace of itself that anyone's ever found. All of the claimed traces are found to be natural whenever examined.
Until there is actual, objective evidence of a higher force, it occupies the same veridical niche as leprechauns and unicorns.

Now I am convinced that only God's spirit can help a person to understand/ come to that conclusion...) So then, please do tell, if you can, what you believe happened when vegetation started and animal life. Did they have the same "universal common ancestor"? What do scientists say? By the way, I appreciate your diligence in trying to assert (dare I not say 'prove') your case.

Now you're bringing up abiogenesis? Hasn't this been explained and linked to a thousand times? You know perfectly well that the full sequence of steps hasn't been worked out yet. Why would this cast doubt on evolution or abiogenesis? How does this support your claim of magic?

 

[YoursTrue]

The various mechanisms of evolution are glaringly apparent. They're easily observed and easily demonstrated. People have been successfully using the selective mechanism for millennia in agriculture and husbandry.

No, the mechanisms of evolution, let's say, from fish to apes as purported by evolutionists, are not glaringly apparent, as you say. They are, in fact, hidden. They are not there, meaning despite a fossil called Tiktaalik, there's nothing to show that fish clamored eventually out of water and became exclusively air-breathers. Sorry, but the theory doesn't add up except in the imaginations of men based on fossils and possibly appearances.

 

[YoursTrue]

The various mechanisms of evolution are glaringly apparent. They're easily observed and easily demonstrated. People have been successfully using the selective mechanism for millennia in agriculture and husbandry.
The mechanisms of evolution are described by the theory of evolution.

No, magic posits no physical mechanism. The theory describes several physical mechanisms in detail. Everything is understandable and commonsense.
The ToE is based solidly on demonstrable, objective, empirical evidence. Your alternative is unevidenced and based on conjecture and folklore.
It's the religious miracles that are the magical myths.


Stop it, YT!
The mechanisms and evidence has been explained to you a hundred times. Did you forget it all, are you deliberately ignoring it, or are you really this obtuse?

That may be, but this 'higher force' has left no trace of itself that anyone's ever found. All of the claimed traces are found to be natural whenever examined.
Until there is actual, objective evidence of a higher force, it occupies the same veridical niche as leprechauns and unicorns.

Now you're bringing up abiogenesis? Hasn't this been explained and linked to a thousand times? You know perfectly well that the full sequence of steps hasn't been worked out yet. Why would this cast doubt on evolution or abiogenesis? How does this support your claim of magic?

Actually I'm not bringing it up in the way you suggest. I am asking if ANYONE of the human race now knows the first item that purportedly began the process claimed to be evolution from whatever then until now...That is NOT abiogenesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually I'm not bringing it up in the way you suggest. I am asking if ANYONE of the human race now knows the first item that purportedly began the process claimed to be evolution from whatever then until now...That is NOT abiogenesis.

The answer is probably "no".
Why do you think this is significant?

Do you know who your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother was?
No? Does that mean she didn't exist?

 

[metis]

I believed it for a long time until yes, I began studying the Bible, seeing what it says, and recognizing that evolution does not do the job it's purported to do, that is, follow the real lineage from the beginning (of life on earth), for several reasons.

And I had the opposite reaction whereas I left the church I grew up in because it taught against accepting the basic fact of the ToE, namely life evolves over time. Fortunately, I now belong to a church that accepts such basic and logical science.

 

[Valjean]

No, the mechanisms of evolution, let's say, from fish to apes as purported by evolutionists, are not glaringly apparent, as you say. They are, in fact, hidden. They are not there, meaning despite a fossil called Tiktaalik, there's nothing to show that fish clamored eventually out of water and became exclusively air-breathers. Sorry, but the theory doesn't add up except in the imaginations of men based on fossils and possibly appearances.

Fish to apes is not a "mechanism of evolution." Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Genetic drift, mutation, sex and gene flow are mechanisms of evolution.
Fish to apes is mathematical/logical sleight-of-hand; a technical consequence of nested categories. You've been blinded by Big Pictire technicalities.
Look at Belayev/Trut's foxes, peppered moths, antibiotic resistant bacteria, or -- dare I mention them -- Darwin's finches to see mechanisms of evolution in action.

As for fish, there are living species of fish that have transformed fins into legs, or use air for gas exchange, as well as mammals in various stages of return to water.
Species (populations) do change over time. It's observable, and the mechanisms are known.

 

[Kathryn]

Please don't make me watch videos.

 

[Valjean]

Actually I'm not bringing it up in the way you suggest. I am asking if ANYONE of the human race now knows the first item that purportedly began the process claimed to be evolution from whatever then until now...That is NOT abiogenesis.

How about the hydrophilic/hydrophobic ends of amphiphilic phospholipids, allowing the formation of micelles and liposomes?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not at all -- the more I have examined the posts here as well as the theory, I realize it's you that believes in magic. (Have a good one...)

And yet you've not bothered to explain how, exactly, evolution is "magic" in your eyes.

 

[Valjean]

Please don't make me watch videos.

"Please don't present unpleasant facts in inconvenient formats."

 

[Kathryn]

"Please don't present unpleasant facts in inconvenient formats."

I am not inclined to go through 58 pgs of stuff OR watch 45 minute videos. But you do you -- I'll pass.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please don't make me watch videos.

Then you have almost no choice but to accept what the experts say. You could try to learn enough of the basics so that you could understand how we know that evolution is a fact.