You're correct.  Sorry about that.

I know it was tongue in cheek but it was still a misrepresentation of evolution.

That may be but evolutionary theory has changed as new evidence has come in so evolution no longer states that we came from monkeys.  It has been found that we merely share a common ancentor with other primates, the branch for gorillas/chimps and humans is closer than humans and other monkeys.

Lucy is just part of the link.  It's not evolutionist's embarrasment, it's the scietific process.  When new data comes in the old theories and hypotheses are reassessed and new conclusions/hypotheses are made.  Science is a living thing.

And that has nothing to do with evolution.  Evolution doesn't explain how anything got here to start with, but how things have evolved over time from what was here before.

Neither do I.  But I bet you know the color and maybe even the make and model of every car that you've owned.

Exactly.

Kfc posts #336

Leauki posts:

And I honestly claim the very same thing as KFC...Evolution does state that one species becomes another....

From the World Book Dictionary, A_K Vol 23 page 737, the definition of "Evolution"...

n. 1. any process of formation or growth; gradual development. 2 something evolved; product of development; not a sudden discovery or creation. 3 the theory that all living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a type of reptile, and ultimately all forms are traced back to a simple single-celled organism. ........9 Philosophy....the theory that a process or progressive change, with the development of more complex entities, characterizes all force and matter in the universe. Evolution is advance from the simple to the complex.

From a 10th grade biology book, by Miller/Levine, in the chapter on evolution, page 269 the definition of "evolution" is "process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organisms."   

Keeping this definition in mind,

on pg. 271, "In the Origin of Species, Darwin maintained that modern organisms were produced by a process called evolution. Evolution is a process of change over time. Darwin argued that just as each new organism comes from pre-existing organisms, each species has descended from other species over time. If you look back far enough in time, you will see that all species have shared, or common ancestors. Page 272, "Darwin and other scientists have accumulated a vast amount of evidence that proves that evolution has occurred.   

(My emphasis....and this is a lie as no such evidence that proves evolution according to this definition has ever been provided.)

And from a book entitled, "Understanding Science and Nature, Evolution of Life" which is found in just about every public school library or science class...is this

Pages 4-5,7 ..."The oldest known living creature, a bacterium, took form in the earth's oceans some 3.5 billion years ago. In the eons since life has become tremendously diverse. Living organisms now include as many as 30 million species...yet every species----the worms that endure precariously at the bottom of the ocean, the insects that live in the treetops of the tropical rain forest, the tiniest bacterium, the largest redwood tree, the hemlock, and the human being----can trace its origin back to a common, single-celled ancestor. The process by which this transformation occurred is known as evolution.

A new species evolves as it responds to changing conditions on Earth. The pattern of evolution resembles a tree, with the end of each branch representing a species. When a branch splits, life becomes more diverse. One of the first splits in evolutionary history occurred when the eukaryotes--organisms with complex cells---evolved from the prokaryotes, simple single-celled organisms. Other major branches appeared when multicelled eukaryotes evolved from the single celled eukaryotes, and when the plant and animal kingdoms separated. At each split, some trait appeared that distinguished one group of organisms from another."

Page 13, "Naturalists beginning with Aristotle have known that organisms fall into groups that progress from simple to complex. It wasn't until the 19th century that Charles Darwin developed the modern theory of evolution, successfullly explaining how more complex species arose over time from simpler ones.

Another science book entitled, "The Human Race" starts out on page 4, "the earliest human ancestors were ape-like animals, and the only remains they left behind were their teeth and bones which sometimes turned to fossils. The study of fossils human or animal is known as paleontology."

(Truth is those fossils of teeth and bones are proven either fully human or fully ape, there hasn't been any found that were in-between, so this is a lie that is being told to children in public schools.)

EL-DUDERINO POSTS: 342

Please read my post #348 carefully...and you can plainly see that KFC has not been misrepresenting evolution.

Evolution does indeed state that there is a pattern of descent of one species evolving over time into a completely different species....it's called postulated evolutionary sequences...evolution claims progressive changes over time...from simple to the more complex. Proponents of evolution have charts and drawings that show Darwin's "tree of life" ; the base of the tree being the one celled organism and the branches of fish evolving to amphibians to reptiles to mammals to humans....

If evolution did occur as they suggest, it should be possible to show lineages and to establish phylogeny i.e. closely identified "tree" structure ancestry in the fossil evidence, but no such thing has been done. Why? Becasue evolution as they suggest never happened..

In contrast to evolutionary depictions of 'tree-like" ancestry, the actual fossil record of creatures and plants found in rocks is one of parallel vertical ancestry disproving Darwin.

Leauki,

You're like a dripping faucet....and you know what a bother that is! No fun at all.

Ah, gee, kid, did you haveta say this?

EL-DUDERINO POSTS #346

That's just it...evolutionists are having real trouble coming up with evidence of their theory from one common ancestor a simple one-celled amoeba evolves to a complex human idea. The closer we look for evidence of scientific substance,  the less we find.  That's why the theorists keep postulating evidence and failing to find it keeps moving on to other postulates...

In fact evolution, as defined above, crumbles when challenged by real science...genetics is one..it demolishes Darwinism.

Let's face it ....Darwinism was an atheistic intellectual revolution...it's in a sense a scientific religion that many scientists accepted and bent their observations to fit with it.  Evolution failed becasue it broke man's link to God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end.

I quoted only a few science books....this is what's being taught in schools...children learn that they are an advanced level of animals and that there are no moral principles as to their worth and dignity. If evolution is true, then people are just evolved from animals they can do whatever they want, and make up their own rules of right and wrong.

On the other side of the debate, if Special Creation is true, then people were made by God and He gets to make the rules. His standards decide right and wrong. Either way, both ideas affect the way people act.       

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Pointing and laughing is not the only option, the other is crying, but I choose to go with the happier route.

"in fact" nothing you said is fact. And stop using strawmen argument and lies about evolution, if you can't even counter the actual points by it and have to make up ones for you to counter (straw man argument), then you should just admit to yourself that you are wrong.

and the evolutionists don't have facts either...that's why their theory keeps on changing.  They've made some real blunders, not to mention outright farces, over the years to try and pull the wool over our eyes.  Let me just mention a few.....

Piltdown man-

Lucy-she represents the oldest skelton and even the evolutionists don't know what to do with her.  She's very controversial

Java Man- proven to be a hoax.  The founder before he died admitted the whole thing was a fraud and the mistakes surrounding it.  But guess what?  Still in the textbooks as if it were true.  This happens alot. 

The Evolutionary Theory of chemical plus time equals life is not only bad science but also bad philosophy.  Many recent scientific evidences point to a divine design but the resistence to this in the secular will never go away because it's based on faith, not true genuine Science. 

Sir Frederick Hoyle, a brilliant astronomer with many awards and acheivements in his life rejected this nonesense.  He calculated the chance for even the simplist of cells coming into existence outside of an intelligent being was one in ten to the 40,000th power.  He said:

"If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design.  No other possibility I have been able to think of."

I emphasized the part about the wrath of scientific opinion because it's funny to see that just like it was way back in the dark ages when one dared not question the RCC, we now being intimidated by the secular Scientific community into believing what they want us to believe......even though they keep changing the rules along the way.  Scientists who disagree have to keep their mouths shut or they lose a speaking voice in the Science World because the NIH and other secular science programs  run the show. 

It's no different than the religious establishment of old.  It's the same  religious tactics being used on us only this time in the name of Science and they go after the kids with their ever changing bad science and philosophy. 

That's why what Lula was taught, and I was taught and what is being taught today is totally different. 

But the historical biblical account never ever changes.  I believe one day that true Science and the true account of creation as depicted in the ancient scriptures will come together.  It's just a matter of timing. 

Again and again you call things that aren't evolution, evolution.

Evolution never has and never will deal with the origin of life, it only deals with the development of species from existing life.

SCIENTISTS happen to freqently beleive in both evolution, and in the theory of life creation that says that life spontanous arose from chemicals.

And there being a hoax or two doesn't have any bearing about weather evolution is true or not, thats like saying that religion is a pedophile scam because a priest or two have touched little boys inappropriately.

like chemicals plus time equalling life?  Then what do you call it?  It's definitely a belief that came from the evolutionists' camp.  We didn't make this up.  They did. 

According to Darwin's theory....all living creatures descended from a single ancestor.....all the plants, animals, and other organisims that exist today are products of random mutation and natural selection.  

to me that's sounds an awful lot like some sort of origin talk even if everything came from that first unknown ancestor already present.....not to mention his very famous book was entitled "Origin of Species."  What does origin mean?   

To me that sounds an awful lot like a tomato at one time could have been a watermelon. If they all came from the same cell, why not?   That's why I say that even tongue in cheek. 

Evolution had to start from somewhere.  It didn't just "evolve" from nothing.

I happen to believe Science is a friend to faith. 

I just don't buy into the evolutionary theory that is being taught today is Science.  It's not based on fact but interpretation of the facts.  That's where the rub is.   I look at Dawinism not as Science but as a grand philosophy that attempts to explain the world without a creator, or in naturalistic terms. 

according to a Professor at Berkeley the reason Darwinism won't die is that its basic premise is simply taken for granted; that is that chance and the laws of nature can account for everything we see around us, even living things.  Given that assumption, Darwinism has to be true because nothing else is permitted inside the arena of possible explanations.  Creation has been ruled out from the start and the other naturalistic theories are worse than Darwin's.  So any aregument against Darwinism is usually ignored or lauged at. 

Richard Dawkins said:

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that.)"

Nice guy.  You know what they say when you can't defend your argument without insulting the person?  Dawkins is following  in the footsteps of Darwin and his defenders.  Ever since Darwin proposed his theory of Evolution his defender's favorite tactic has been to attack their critics' intelligence and integrity (which has happened to me alot here on JU right Leauki?) 

Darwin himself used this tactic against some of the great Scientists of his day accusing them of superstition and religiousity.  Why not just stick to the argument? 

Just so you know, this has been going on for eons. 

See, she doesn't have the integrity to correct her statements about evolution. It doesn't matter how often you tell her that she is misrepresenting and lying about evolution, it just doesn't matter.

Some Christians will tell us that honesty is a Christian principle, but they won't live it.

They do expect other people to take their word that their interpretation of scripture is correct though.

But they have achieved something. While formerly I was on the fence regarding the gay marriage thing, I am now finally convinced that it is a good thing. If those who are against it are proud liars, I want to be for it.

I don't know if he really said that (sounds like him though).

But I do know that I have yet to meet a single Creationist who understands evolution. They all believe that their ignorance entitles them to "know better" than the scientists.

So far all articles and essays I have been pointed to written by Creationist "scientists" rejecting evolution betray their ignorance by using one of the three popular lies about evolution:

1. Evolution is about the beginning of life. (It's not.)

2. Evolution claims that one species turns into another. (It doesn't. Species branch into two species without ever turning into another.)

3. Evolution denies the existence of a god. (I can't.)

The odd thing is that all those lies are always told be people who are proud to have faith in G-d. But they lie anyway and publicly and all the time. And G-d keeps punishing them by making those societies where evolution is taught in schools more successful than those societies where Creationist fairy tales are told.

Taltimer,

Glad you find it funny, but if you believe in evolution--- that is, according to the evolutionist's definition ----as an established fact, then the joke is on you...as there is no substantial scientific data to sustain it. 

How would you know? You don't know what evolution is.