Caricos theories of evolution and other such stuff

[Carico]

Mod Note: This thread is a depository for Carico's theories and the various attempts to address them

http://www.nearingzero.net

Here's a good one; hundreds of thousands of years ago, apes turned into humans.

 

[Vkothii]

Here's one that's even better: yesterday some ignoramus said that humans were different to apes.

But humans are just a different kind of ape; ape is another word for "hominin".
We weren't the only kind of humans around either, not that long ago, but now we are.

It's almost as funny as someone saying that walking is something only human apes can do.
(chortle)

 

[fadingCaptain]

elephants changing into tigers? what in the world is in your head?

 

[Carico]

elephants changing into tigers? what in the world is in your head?

Yes, animals appear to evolve and change due to mutations,

So what do animals change into? Humans like apes supposedly did? Or perhaps other animals like elephants changing into tigers? :bugeye: Or perhaps each animal simply reproduces itself as reality demonstrates.

 

[Carico]

Here's one that's even better: yesterday some ignoramus said that humans were different to apes.

But humans are just a different kind of ape; ape is another word for "hominin".
We weren't the only kind of humans around either, not that long ago, but now we are.

It's almost as funny as someone saying that walking is something only human apes can do.
(chortle)

I bet any child can point out the difference between humans and apes on sight. And obviously you can't as you admit.

 

[spidergoat]

Popular colloquial definitions do not often reflect the actual subtlety of scientifically determined facts.

 

[Carico]

Popular colloquial definitions do not often reflect the actual subtlety of scientifically determined facts.

Sorry but since all animals can't contemplate science and you call yourself an animal, then your post is as incoherent as an animal's thought process.

 

[spidergoat]

Oh really? So how does an elephant change into a tiger? Do you know what mating and breeding results in? Re-production? do you know why it's called re-production? Because each species breeds its own species. That's what a reproductive system is. No animal contains a system where it produces another animal. Unbelievable. So you absolutely ARE believing in evolution because you're told to since animals do not produce other animals as descendants in reality.

Species is a human definition that is not precisely reflected in reality.

 

[spidergoat]

Our language has not caught up to modern scientific thought.

 

[Carico]

Our language has not caught up to modern scientific thought.

Again, since you see scientists as animals then of course they can't reason like a human. But this agrees with the bible:

Jude 10 when talking about godless men; "Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they don't understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals-these are the very things that destroy them."

So the interests of atheists in pornography, bodily gratification, anger, and survival are the instincts of animals. But since humans have the potential to understand higher values than animals, which no animal has, then unbelievers are deliberately choosing to behave like animals. But since they see themselves as no better than an ape, then I can understand why they can act no better than an ape. And that includes the "reasoning" of scientists.

 

[Carico]

Species is a human definition that is not precisely reflected in reality.

:roflmao: Only scientists don't know what "each animal according to its kind" means. And that's why they are confused about which animal can breed what. But most children know. They can spot the difference between a bear and a tiger & a human and an animal instantly.

 

[spidergoat]

So can I. What children don't see is the history of plant and animal life, which quite clearly shows that modern animals were not present in the distant past, but very different kinds of animals were.

 

[nietzschefan]

Again, since you see scientists as animals then of course they can't reason like a human. But this agrees with the bible:

Jude 10 when talking about godless men; "Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they don't understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals-these are the very things that destroy them."

So the interests of atheists in pornography, bodily gratification, anger, and survival are the instincts of animals. But since humans have the potential to understand higher values than animals, which no animal has, then unbelievers are deliberately choosing to behave like animals. But since they see themselves as no better than an ape, then I can understand why they can act no better than an ape. And that includes the "reasoning" of scientists.

Dude, what are you doing on a science forum?...seriously.

 

[spidergoat]

Evangelizing.

 

[nietzschefan]

I think he is best ignored, ignore the sickly ignorant.

 

[solidsquid]

It's like trying to explain quantum physics to a three year old....it's pointless.

 

[Carico]

So can I. What children don't see is the history of plant and animal life, which quite clearly shows that modern animals were not present in the distant past, but very different kinds of animals were.

Actually children witness how animals mate and breed because they visit the zoo or live on a farm. So all children who've observed this will know that what will come out of a cow is a calf, not another species. So instead of blindly believing every word you read in a science book, you would fare better to observe reality because truth can only be found in reality, not in the imaginations of men.

 

[spidergoat]

No animal ever gives birth to another species. Yet, speciation does occur over long periods. Children aren't millions of years old, so they can't see it. We can't see a soul either, so is that false?

 

[spidergoat]

You are an *****. Please *** yourself.
You seem to lack the capacity to understand basic subjects, so it seems pointless to continue.


Mod note: be nice, or put on ignore

 

[Carico]

You have just proven my point Carico. You have to understand what's involved first - do you even have an inkling of knowledge of genetics? By this simple paragraph, I'd say and emphatic "no"

I know that each couple can only produce descendants that contain the genes of their parents which is more than evolutionists know. But we can't talk about biology on this thread because the mods don't know the difference between biology and religion.