Eating Meat May Have 'Made Us Human' - Page 4

The differentness is Evolution is tax supported and it's thought in schools as if it is part of the fact.
I am done on this thread.
Shtal.



BTW,  If you teach in schools, you should give alternative, hey maybe there is similarities because of the common designer as appose to common ancestor.

No Shtal, evolution is a THEORY based on scientific FACT and creationism is DOGMA, plain and simple.  The Scopes Trial has been over for, uh, let's see, 87 years and it was decided way back then.  Since then, we've had many others in a long line, including Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District and EVERY single one ended the exact same way.  Do you know why they ended that way Shtal?  Because in a court of law, factual evidence wins every time and religion loses, because there is not one single bit, crumb, smidgeon, iota or atom that supports ANY supernatural being and there never will be.  It will lose every single time it is brought... as well it should.

Shital,

 Do you ever get tired of being flat out wrong?

TA DA, Felloffher found chromosome #2.  Evidently, Shtal's ancestors were eating crow while ours were eating meat.

Kent Hovind wrote: The theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more complex as time progresses. Because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve and those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of evolution experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms. From the chart, it is “obvious” that we all started off as penicillin with only 2 chromosomes, and that we slowly evolved into fruit flies. After many millions of years we turned into tomatoes (or house flies) and so on, until we reached the human stage with 46 chromosomes. One of our ancestors must have been one of the identical triplets—possums, redwood trees, and kidney beans—with 22 chromosomes each.

If we are allowed to continue evolving, we may someday be tobacco plants, and maybe we may even become carp with 100- or maybe even the ultimate life-form, a fern with 480 chromosomes!

In a recent blog, some readers presume that, because of the content, we must not understand how evolution really works. One reader wrote this:

My true intent (at least with this thread) is to demonstrate that the writers here are either ignorant of evolutionary theory, or are intentionally misrepresenting it. If they are making an honest mistake in stating what they believe the theory to say, that’s one thing. However, when they make the same statements, even after being corrected, that is dishonesty. In my opinion, it is missing the mark.

You state: Just because you believe that something isn’t an “accurate representation of what the theory [says]” doesn’t mean that you’re right, and doesn’t make the other person wrong or a liar.” If they are accurately representing evolutionary theory, then they should be able to bring out an example of a text that supports their point. This is a direct challenge to you and to CSE—to examine any modern mainstream textbook on evolution or molecular biology and let me know and every other reader know where it says that chromosome number is related to organism complexity. You won’t find it. I teach on this subject and have used many texts. The fact is that the evidence states otherwise. In fact, there is a name for a related phenomenon—the C-value paradox. This concept is that genome size does not correspond with organism complexity.

Response

Unfortunately, you are missing the point. The goal of the article is not to say that the number of chromosomes is related to evolution, but rather to demonstrate that evolution picks and chooses what to look for in order to make the theory seem possible! You can arrange things in an order all day long, but it does not represent a relationship between the two things. The following example should demonstrate this:



Notice the amazing way that the fork evolved from the knife over millions of years! See? Arranging things in order, based on appearance or anything else, does not prove they had a common ancestor, but instead a common designer.

Feedback

Several people were upset that many of the questions did not deal with “evolution.”

Response

The article was not titled “10 Questions about Evolution,” it was “10 Questions for Evolutionists.” To say that we are ignorant of evolution theory because the first seven questions deal with the problems before life in the evolution theory is a terrible excuse and an obvious attempt to avoid the questions rather than dealing with some honest issues that need to be addressed. Indeed, “cosmic evolution,” “chemical evolution,” “stellar evolution,”and “organic evolution” have some serious problems before we even reach the stage of “macro” or “micro” evolution. These questions do not show a lack of understanding of the evolution world view, but rather pose a serious threat to the entire religious world view of Evolutionism.

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning, but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

10 Questions to Ask Evolutionists:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain the origin of reproduction?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

 

 

First of all Shtal, we didn't breed with monkeys, we had a COMMON ancestor and we branched off in a different direction.

ROFLMAO!!!!

He's right about one thing and one thing only.  Ignorance, in his case, is bliss. 

You guys would have more success communicating with a Chimp.
A Chimp wants to learn, Shtal wants to follow Hovind.