Evolution Refuted
First Prev
of 11
Next Last
Rohan

Edinburgh, UK

#1 Aug 12, 2013
One refutation of evolution:Suppose mankind did indeed evolve from apes and the apes from other creatures and so forth back to the amoeba in a gradual and continuous way over millions of years. Then should the evolution occur at the same uniform pace we would have no primary animals, i.e. we should have no apes (and even no amoebas!) since they should have all evolved into humans. On the other hand assume it was at different speeds of evolution in different families we would expect a continuous range of interspecies animals ranging from a pure ape to pure human and millions of interspecies human/ape morphs in between all of them still currently existing and evolving yet this is not the case. Hence evolution is false and consequently animals were directly created in their specific species by a specific creator. QED

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#2 Aug 12, 2013
Rohan wrote:
One refutation of evolution:Suppose mankind did indeed evolve from apes and the apes from other creatures and so forth back to the amoeba in a gradual and continuous way over millions of years. Then should the evolution occur at the same uniform pace we would have no primary animals, i.e. we should have no apes (and even no amoebas!) since they should have all evolved into humans. On the other hand assume it was at different speeds of evolution in different families we would expect a continuous range of interspecies animals ranging from a pure ape to pure human and millions of interspecies human/ape morphs in between all of them still currently existing and evolving yet this is not the case. Hence evolution is false and consequently animals were directly created in their specific species by a specific creator. QED
Evolution does not have that sort of goal.

There was no goal to evolve into man.

You clearly have no clue how evolution works.

As I have told others, you cannot debunk a theory that you do not understand. It is not that difficult of a theory. There are plenty of websites that will help you learn, but be warned. Creationist sites do lie, all of the time. They seem to think it is okay to break the commandments for Jesus.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#3 Aug 12, 2013
Rohan wrote:
One refutation of evolution:Suppose mankind did indeed evolve from apes and the apes from other creatures and so forth back to the amoeba in a gradual and continuous way over millions of years. Then should the evolution occur at the same uniform pace we would have no primary animals, i.e. we should have no apes (and even no amoebas!) since they should have all evolved into humans. On the other hand assume it was at different speeds of evolution in different families we would expect a continuous range of interspecies animals ranging from a pure ape to pure human and millions of interspecies human/ape morphs in between all of them still currently existing and evolving yet this is not the case. Hence evolution is false and consequently animals were directly created in their specific species by a specific creator. QED
Nonsensical, ignorant gibberish
Primeval Predator

Deception Bay, Australia

#4 Aug 12, 2013
blablabla evoulotion is fake!

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#5 Aug 12, 2013
Primeval Predator wrote:
blablabla evoulotion is fake!
Satanic whacko.
Rohan

Edinburgh, UK

#6 Aug 12, 2013
It seems Darwin himself provided the refutation:

"Why, if species have descended from the other species by fine gradation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Charles Darwin

Much the same as the second part of what I said -presumably he knew his own theory ... and its inherent weakness.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#7 Aug 12, 2013
Rohan wrote:
It seems Darwin himself provided the refutation:
"Why, if species have descended from the other species by fine gradation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Charles Darwin
Much the same as the second part of what I said -presumably he knew his own theory ... and its inherent weakness.
Quote mining is a form of lying.

Creatards are not allowed to quote people without proper links to the original quote, in context, unless they want people to point out that they are lying.
Rohan

Edinburgh, UK

#8 Aug 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution does not have that sort of goal.
There was no goal to evolve into man.
You clearly have no clue how evolution works.
As I have told others, you cannot debunk a theory that you do not understand. It is not that difficult of a theory. There are plenty of websites that will help you learn, but be warned. Creationist sites do lie, all of the time. They seem to think it is okay to break the commandments for Jesus.
It seems Darwin himself provided the refutation:

"Why, if species have descended from the other species by fine gradation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Charles Darwin

Much the same as the second part of what I said -presumably he knew his own theory ... and its inherent weakness.

I am Muslim so believe in God and prayer and charity like the Christians do....My world view is based on my faith in conjunction with reason and in this case is the same as Mr Darwin's own reasoning/refutation regarding the absence of innumerable transitional forms e.g. ape/human morphs. Your second point of evolution not having a specific goal is also covered by Mr Darwin's point of nature not being in confusion.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#9 Aug 12, 2013
Rohan wrote:
It seems Darwin himself provided the refutation:
"Why, if species have descended from the other species by fine gradation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Charles Darwin
Much the same as the second part of what I said -presumably he knew his own theory ... and its inherent weakness.
This is the quote that comes before your incorrectly worded quote.

"LONG BEFORE HAVING ARRIVED at this part of my work, a
crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader.
Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never
reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the
best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal
to my theory.

Darwin was preempting objection to his theory. At the time the fossil record was scanty. We don't have that problem today. He predicted that we would find the fossils he didn't have available to him.

Congratulations on quote mining something that has been already been butchered to death by your fellow bereft. You are the man.
Primeval Predator

Deception Bay, Australia

#10 Aug 12, 2013
Its fake whako.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#11 Aug 12, 2013
Rohan wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems Darwin himself provided the refutation:
"Why, if species have descended from the other species by fine gradation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Charles Darwin
Much the same as the second part of what I said -presumably he knew his own theory ... and its inherent weakness.
I am Muslim so believe in God and prayer and charity like the Christians do....My world view is based on my faith in conjunction with reason and in this case is the same as Mr Darwin's own reasoning/refutation regarding the absence of innumerable transitional forms e.g. ape/human morphs. Your second point of evolution not having a specific goal is also covered by Mr Darwin's point of nature not being in confusion.
So you decided to lie.

I don't know if the Muslims have the 10 Commandments or not. Do Muslims have some sort of rule against lying?

It does not matter if you are a Muslim or not. A creatrard is a creatard regardless of religion. Sooner or later all creatards lie.
Rohan

Edinburgh, UK

#12 Aug 12, 2013
1. Ok so we know agree the quote is genuine since even you my opponents accept it
2. Of course it is a conditional objection otherwise the theory would have failed ab-initio

But your own mockery now demonstrates that 1. I was truthful in quotation 2. I was correct in reasoning (since this was in part Darwin's own perceived flaw).

But and this is what you fail to get it is not a debate about fossil records ...Why are the innumerable transitional forms not currently existing?...Why are there not millions of ape-human morphs with different proportions of ape/human in a nice continuous distribution populating our earth for example ?

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#13 Aug 12, 2013
Rohan wrote:
1. Ok so we know agree the quote is genuine since even you my opponents accept it
2. Of course it is a conditional objection otherwise the theory would have failed ab-initio
But your own mockery now demonstrates that 1. I was truthful in quotation 2. I was correct in reasoning (since this was in part Darwin's own perceived flaw).
But and this is what you fail to get it is not a debate about fossil records ...Why are the innumerable transitional forms not currently existing?...Why are there not millions of ape-human morphs with different proportions of ape/human in a nice continuous distribution populating our earth for example ?
If you misuse the quote and represent it to mean what it doesn't mean, then you are dishonest. I think you believe you didn't misuse it and are even dishonest with yourself.

Darwin didn't perceive it as a flaw, but a challenge.

What do you think a transitional form would look like? Have you looked at all the existing organisms alive today? There are estimates ranging up to 100 million species but five to seven is more likely. In any event we haven't described a quarter of that. Why do you guys use the word morph? Is it the Power Rangers thing? Why do you say we evolved from apes? Evolution doesn't say that. Before you jump, better check. We're serving egg today. Why does creationist think that a transitional form will look like some half-this, half-that sort of creature. I suppose it could be, but there isn't any precedent that it should be or will be or is the dominant type of transition. Remember evolution happened over a great deal of time. Consider it like the aging process. A 50 year old man doesn't look like he did at 20, but the change in appearance was so gradual, a specific transition can't be easily identified except by snapshots in time. That is what the fossil record gives us. Snapshots in time that show the transition.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#14 Aug 12, 2013
Rohan wrote:
1. Ok so we know agree the quote is genuine since even you my opponents accept it
2. Of course it is a conditional objection otherwise the theory would have failed ab-initio
But your own mockery now demonstrates that 1. I was truthful in quotation 2. I was correct in reasoning (since this was in part Darwin's own perceived flaw).
But and this is what you fail to get it is not a debate about fossil records ...Why are the innumerable transitional forms not currently existing?...Why are there not millions of ape-human morphs with different proportions of ape/human in a nice continuous distribution populating our earth for example ?
The quote was incomplete. You left some wording out.

Again, not a flaw. The lack of a more complete fossil record was not a defect in his theory. He knew that the paucity of the fossil record of his time would be pointed out, but he clearly did not consider it a flaw.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#15 Aug 12, 2013
Primeval Predator wrote:
Its fake whako.
Your fake. Evil whako ff. Go cruise somewhere else. There is no chicken here for you.

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#16 Aug 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Quote mining is a form of lying.
Creatards are not allowed to quote people without proper links to the original quote, in context, unless they want people to point out that they are lying.
Here is your link with the info plus other info.

http://www.literaturepage.com/read/darwin-ori...

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#17 Aug 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This is the quote that comes before your incorrectly worded quote.
"LONG BEFORE HAVING ARRIVED at this part of my work, a
crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader.
Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never
reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the
best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal
to my theory.
Darwin was preempting objection to his theory. At the time the fossil record was scanty. We don't have that problem today. He predicted that we would find the fossils he didn't have available to him.
Congratulations on quote mining something that has been already been butchered to death by your fellow bereft. You are the man.
You are quote mining. Here is the link for you as well.

http://www.literaturepage.com/read/darwin-ori...

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#18 Aug 12, 2013
Rohan wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems Darwin himself provided the refutation:
"Why, if species have descended from the other species by fine gradation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Charles Darwin
Much the same as the second part of what I said -presumably he knew his own theory ... and its inherent weakness.
I am Muslim so believe in God and prayer and charity like the Christians do....My world view is based on my faith in conjunction with reason and in this case is the same as Mr Darwin's own reasoning/refutation regarding the absence of innumerable transitional forms e.g. ape/human morphs. Your second point of evolution not having a specific goal is also covered by Mr Darwin's point of nature not being in confusion.
The short quote you quoted was spot on, word for word.

http://www.literaturepage.com/read/darwin-ori...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#19 Aug 13, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is your link with the info plus other info.
http://www.literaturepage.com/read/darwin-ori...
You still don't know what quote mining is, do you?

That is still only part of the quote. What was before it? What was after it? I am betting that he posted that as a possible objection to evolution and the solution followed.

So you did not supply the full quote.

Didn't you see that we requested to see it in context?

The Bible says: "There is no God."

I could even give the verse. Guess what? It is a quote mine.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#20 Aug 13, 2013
Rohan wrote:
1. Ok so we know agree the quote is genuine since even you my opponents accept it
2. Of course it is a conditional objection otherwise the theory would have failed ab-initio
But your own mockery now demonstrates that 1. I was truthful in quotation 2. I was correct in reasoning (since this was in part Darwin's own perceived flaw).
But and this is what you fail to get it is not a debate about fossil records ...Why are the innumerable transitional forms not currently existing?...Why are there not millions of ape-human morphs with different proportions of ape/human in a nice continuous distribution populating our earth for example ?
Transitional forms exist all around you, everything is transitional, all you are seeing is one particular stage in that transition.

Lets discuss humans, take a look back 2 to 5 thousand years, skeletons tended on average to be smaller and more delicate. The increase in skeletal mass and size to the present day is well documented with no breaks in the timeline. Go back to Europe of 30,000 years ago. Cro-Magnon are classed as human in all respects and yet their bone structure was far more dense than modern day humans, some bones were of different shape. The radius for example had a pear shaped cross section, today that same bone is rounder. The tibia was shorter and much thicker with a more pronounced bend than modern humans and the skull was larger indicating a larger brain capacity.

Go back anther 30,000 years, you still get humans, smaller in stature, a further 30,000 years we still have humans but again smaller with a considerably smaller skull etc, etc until the differences are so profound that science deems a change of name to be apt.

This is what you are focussing on, the abrupt change of name and not the gradual evolutional change.

There are millions of “ape-human morphs” your wording – they are called humans.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 36 min NoahLikesPi 173,938
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr NoahLikesPi 178,701
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) 6 hr macumazahn 1,248
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr macumazahn 20,900
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 15 hr ChromiuMan 143,939
News Pastafarians rejoice! Deep sea creature floatin... 18 hr karl44 1
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) 20 hr dollarsbill 14
More from around the web