Thread: Its time to admit evolution is a fraud

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Originally Posted by dean

A fruit fly could never be considered an animal

Okay dude, how about you read up on elementary school biology before you try to invalidate the cumulative work of thousands of PhDs.

Are you saying that you think a fruit fly is an animal? You do realize that people with phDs disagree with each other all the time....Science is mostly about challenging things, not blindly accepting them.

Yes, it's so clear now - it has Fruit right in the name - how could I not see it before…

Ok, if it's not an animal, then what the heck is it?

It must be a plant. Fruits are plants.

It is time to admit that you don't know what you are talking about. Of course a fruit fly is an animal. What the heck do you think it is, a plant? Fungus? A single cell organism? No it is an animal. Any one who says a fly isn't an animal has no clue what they are talking about.

This is silly, you can't just make up your own definitions of what words mean. You are also doing it with the word species and kinds. Kinds isn't a term to define anything. It is gibber, nonsense creationist made up to basically mean, "It looks kind of a like." It isn't even a clearly defined term. Mean while, in science species are clearly defined. They have an entire system of organizing life forms and species refer to the smallest subgroup of life, and refer to life forms that can interbreed and produce fertile life forms.

When you make up words like kinds of animals, you get very vague terms and no one knows what the heck your talking about. Creationist use that to confuse people.

As for the feather thing, you are basically describing what happened. The line of animals that produced feathers, all have feathers because some ancestor common to all of them had feathers. You wouldn't at all expect random animals like cows or even many lizards to have them. If you trace it back and a group branched off prior to the first feathered animal, then you would not expect them to ever have feathers. The only animals with feathers would be the one that branched off after the development of feathers.

As for the fossils you are just wrong. Fossils are found in layers which help date them, and we can see that fossils appear in order. As you go further back from recent geological history to longer ago, you can trace animals back to their common ancestors. The fossils do not show up randomly, but in ways that confirm evolution.

Yes, Scientists do contradict each other all the time when the topic on hand is disputed.
The question of whether a fruit fly is an animal or not is not one of those examples.
It is an animal, an insect to be specific just like all flies (yes, even butterflies).
It's multi-cellular, requires food to survive, is highly mobile, lacks a cell wall or any chloroplasts in it's cells.
Honestly, what part of a fruit fly do you think lacks the criteria to be an animal?!!
If anything, the question of whether dogs are examples of animals or not would be more reasonable to doubt!
After all, insects make up the vast majority of species of animals on earth and have been around for way longer.
I don't even think most creationists would be so ignorant to consider the fruit fly to not be an example of an animal.
You make Kent Hovind look like Francis Crick!

And this:

Science is mostly about challenging things, not blindly accepting them.

Yes, science often involves challenging things and not blindly accepting them (like blindly accepting the doctrines of the bible for example).
However, challenging things is not an end to itself in science. The goal of science is to form increasingly more accurate models of reality.
What that means is that when a theory gets overturned, the new theory predicts a narrower range of values for a particular phenomena.
I want you to read that sentence again and again until the implications sink in.

As science advances, successive theories have predictions that resemble each other more and more with only minor deviations. Newton's laws of gravitation went unchallenged for three hundred years and were overturned from an error margin in the 1000th's. That's because scientists have this arrogant idea that their models of reality should be true all the time instead of merely some of the time and what's more, they should be precise predictions that cannot have ambigious interpretations.

I know that's a difficult concept to understand for a creationist who's relationship with truth makes Tiger Woods look like the champion of fidelity but that's how it is.

But none of that matters to you since you believe the word of intellectual invalids that think their knowledge of an ancient text gives them more insight over the natural processes of the universe than the ones who actually bothered to get off their asses and observe it. What's more, you have the audacity to complain about the conclusions that they make using that approach on a device only made possible from their knowledge.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Yes, it's so clear now - it has Fruit right in the name - how could I not see it before…

Ok, if it's not an animal, then what the heck is it?

The same question still applies - if insects aren't animals, what are they? And a sarcastic internet meme isn't an answer.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

The same question still applies - if insects aren't animals, what are they? And a sarcastic internet meme isn't an answer.

An animal is things like, a Kangaroo, a Dog, a Cat. a Lion. An insect is things like, a Fly, an Ant, a Spider, a Bee.

Insects are very different to animals. I'm not trying to be mean, but you really need to get basic concepts right before you try and prove a theory that doesn't make any sense in the first place.

Well, I'm not trying to prove a theory. The theory is well established. You're the one trying to disprove it - or rather Creationists in general are, but unfortunately they just don't understand science well enough to even take a decent stab at it. But then thats not really true - actually it's not that they (the leaders of it anyway) really don't understand science - it's rather that they know if they spin enough emotionally satisfying half-truths and myths then the flock will just regurgitate those and never actually take a real look at science or truth.

A complex living thing - above the level of viruses, bacteria, and single-celled organisms, must either be an animal or a plant. Though someone who is more scientifically literate than I feel free to correct me if I'm missing something. (No Deanstar, that does not mean you!)

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

must either be an animal or a plant.

So now, insects don't exist? LOL

Another example of a animal, is a Raccoon. It is in fact my favourite animal, I think it is the one with the most attitude, and the one I most relate to, always good to spice things up a bit

The fundemental difference between animal and insect






Darkmatters, can you see the main difference in the creature that would effect evolution theory? If you compare a butterfly to say the evolution of tiger. You must see how you are dealing with a different set of creatures. Insects arn't in the same category.

This has gone beyond embarrassing, Deanstar. "Animal" does not mean the same thing as "mammal". Do us all a favour and spend two minutes on Wikipedia. Unless you've just decided to start trolling.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

This has gone beyond embarrassing, Deanstar. "Animal" does not mean the same thing as "mammal". Do us all a favour and spend two minutes on Wikipedia. Unless you've just decided to start trolling.

I don't care about the semantics, call it whatever you want. Call an insect a type of animal if you want! Fact remains they are a different category. Why use fruit fly species, to try and prove that different types of animals can evolve. I think that is embarassing to say that is science....

Insects because creepy. Animals because fluffy. Duh!

Originally Posted by ~ Dreamer ~

Insects because creepy. Animals because fluffy. Duh!

Well their argument is that an insect is still a type of animal, cause if they want to prove the ocean is where we came from, resort to things like tiny fruit flies and bacteria. If you go small enough you can say even a tiny mutation is relevant, and then jump to a massive conclusion about fish turning into dinosaurs, and then birds somehow. It doesn't have to make sense, they just have to claim that it does, then you not allowed to question it.


I look at all those creatures and think "that's an amazingly diverse set of creatures in both categories" but evolutionist look at it and think "how can I join them together and create a story about how they mated to morph into all that? Maybe use fruit flies or some bacteria will do" Someone for intelligent design is going to recognize that there is no theory capable of explaining or proving how all these different animals obtained their DNA seperately. An evolutionist starts lining up different bones, and making assumptions about how the bones changed. Someone for intelligent design will question if bones ever change, and recognize that the fossil record doesn't allow for these changes. An evolutionist will try and date the earth back billions of years. Someone for intelligent design is going to question how with any chemical you could use as a ruler, or any dating system you could make an assumption that goes back as far as a billion years. When you really start to question it, you realize that evolutionist do not rely on evidence or critical thinking, they rely on simply repeating themselves and then changing their theories when it fails, and then repeating themself again until it fails. They will never admit it's not a valid theory. Their agenda is to make it work even when it's not true and even when everything says different. Their message is that evolution must continue to exist in science. But the more we understand science the more we wan't to get rid of the theory of evolution.

I think one of the reasons a girafee has such a long neck, is probaly to try and get through to evolutionists that it didn't evolve it's neck longer than the other animals. That's Gods way of saying, "No evolutionist, Just, No" And then for extra measure create an animal with a massively long nose such as a elephant, just incase you think something like the giraffee is a fluke. Actually put spots on different animals, stripes. Make them have fur, feathers, scales. Even a tail or a massive pink ass. Make them completely different. Just incase someone tries to say they could come from each other. LOL. But no evolutionist still want to say they have a common link, that somehow goes back to bacteria in the sea :/

Well they didn't come from the sea, and we don't even fit into the animal kingdom altogether. We are completely different again! I can't imagine how this theory even manages to think it's proven. Just all of the ecology and life on earth is so ridiculiously organized and complex, and definite, that the mere thought of the evolutionary theory is like the ultimate joke you would tell someone.

If the theory of evolution wasnt invented, and I said to someone, hey lets imagine that all these animals, and us, that we all struggled to change our genetics over generations, and that we had success and now look at everyone, all different types of things, and we might be different again in the future, and just imagine if we did it all from the sea from bacteria. And some of our family went into elephants, some went into tigers, others went into humans, others went into fish and whales. That we are working on some angel wings to fly next. Would you not be on the ground dieing of laughter. Without the indocrintation from a young age, I can assure you it would be funny, as it is funny to me, and anyone that has truly thought about it. You can't pretend this is real, it's just foolish to continue on thinking that the theory is science.

it's getting to the point where I think you know it's false but would rather lie through your teeth, and just hope that people will be foolish enough. It has even being admitted here that evolutionists can't explain the origin of life, and that they have to start from a living organism, and then they make their stories up. They don't even bother to try to explain properly how the earth formed, and if they do, that sounds just as ridiculious as anything else. They can't jump from chemicals to life, they pretend they can jump from baterica to animals. They want to ignore the differences between animals and even say that small changes in insect variation prove about larger different kind of animals? It's just one fallacy after the other. But at the same time, if you question it. they project all their faults on to the sensible thing.

Awwww - what could be fluffier than this?



And I suppose now these guys are demoted to insect status:



Wow, somebody better tell the biologists!! They're going to have to re-do all their taxonomies!

Originally Posted by Deanstar

I don't care about the semantics, call it whatever you want. Call an insect a type of animal if you want! Fact remains they are a different category. Why use fruit fly species, to try and prove that different types of animals can evolve. I think that is embarassing to say that is science....

Taxonomy isn't semantics. It is exact and meaningful. You were simply ignorant about it. Fruit flies are animals. This is not a matter of semantics, this is just a fact. To claim that fruit flies are not animals is wrong. Your problem with using fruit flies as an example of animal evolution is, therefore, imaginary.

Ok, I see what this is now. The Creationist argument that we can't witness evolution in progress was disproven by the fruit flies experiments, and so they did a quick re-think and decided that from now on, and of course retroactively, insects are no longer animals. Lol, it's so amusing to watch the counter-logic twist and turn in ever-more-intricate ways to help adherents ignore truth in all its insidious forms!

But of course, whatever you consider flies to be, they still demonstrate evolution in action. Plants aren't animals, and yet they evolve just as we do. Hell, so do viruses and bacteria and single-celled organisms!! Everything alive evolves, whatever you might classify it as. So really this doesn't even help the Creationist argument at all!

Originally Posted by Deanstar

Well their argument is that an insect is still a type of animal[...]

Of course insects are animals - 'animal' refers to the kingdom Animalia, not a sub-group, which I'm 100% sure you already know.
I was just having a chuckle to myself about this whole ridiculous argument (which I'm not getting sucked into, you can't make me!)

Insects aren't animals??? No, no, don't go there. Just stop. STOP. STOP WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. STOP PANIC.

Originally Posted by juroara

Insects aren't animals??? No, no, don't go there. Just stop. STOP. STOP WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. STOP PANIC.

I call them insects because that's their category.....By your logic, tigers and bears can also be insects because they part of the same group of animals. I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Deanstar

That is very different, from my reasoning. As a philosophy that's complex to reason about it and I wouldn't have all the answers but I could conclude something like this.

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

(So basically, cause and effect, every law of nature, every kind of power material and invisible, created by the Lord)

Now you may ask, and how did God create himself who created God?

I would bring up something like this
Colossians 2:15
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

(so basically being omnipotent, he overcomes everything and can do anything, even questions about the seeming impossibility of his existence)

That is some of the creationist doctrine. As a philosophy I could reason about it in many different ways, but I would never go along the reasoning that you did. You made that reasoning up just to make a mockery of things.

There is a theory called "gap theory" in which some believe that in genesis, is a gap of a extremely long period of time, in which some try to fit 'evolution' into the bible.
I don't believe in this theory because The bible (KJV) makes it clear that it is refering to 7 days of creation. Not periods of billions of years. There is no reasoning which makes any sense to suggest there is millions of years between a verse in genesis. Most of the history of the earth is put together within the old testament. There is not massive gaps of time left where God tries to use 'evolution' and I would never subscribe to that for many reasons. I just wanted to put that out there for people that want to say that evolution is a possible tool God could use. I don't think it is, and in using evolution that would be admiting that creation needs constant 'improving'. But it states that from the beginning what he made was "good" in that you could not improve upon it. So this idea that he needed 'evolution' does not really make sense because otherwise he wouldn't have said after each day of creation, "and it was good", this is like a stamp of aproval that says, it's perfect, you can't improve it. As discussion here, The theory of evolution to me also makes no scientific sense, so not even any principalities support such a theory, let alone something God would want to use.

So your argument is that the Bible says it's true?

Originally Posted by Deanstar

I call them insects because that's their category.....By your logic, tigers and bears can also be insects because they part of the same group anyway. I don't think so.

Tigers and bears are MAMMALS. Thats why they look different from INSECTS.

Are dolphins FISHES?

Just stop. Your argument is shameful. All it does is broadcast to the whole of dreamviews that you fundamentally lack education. I don't know how old you are, I don't know where you live, what school you go to. And I'm not out to make you cry, because for all I know you could be 12. In that case, Id forgive you.

But if you are an adult. This is shameful. Inexcusably, abhorrently, shameful.

Why are insects in the ANIMAL kingdom? First off, they have animal cells. Animal cells are roundish. Compared to plants, which are rectangular. And we haven't even gotten into mushrooms which are neither animals or plants.

Insects are animals.

Insects have eyes. Insects have hearing. Insects have mouths and tongues. Insects have brains. Insects have organs. They eat, they drink, they shit, they piss. Insects have sex, as male and female. Insects lay eggs. Just like fish. Just like amphibians. Just like reptiles. Just like birds.

Insects exhibit complex social structures, like mammals. They are animals.

Your confusion stems from your misunderstanding that animals are divided largely into two classifications: Invertebrates and Vertebrates. We are vertebrates. That means we have a spine. Insects are invertebrates. That means they lack a spine. But both invertebrates and vertebrates are a part of the animal kingdom. Again, because of cellular biology.



This is not a debate.
**I am giving examples of what insects can exhibit, not that they all exhibit those characteristics.

Come on guys, this is actually entertaining!

The article that was posted by deanstar under "Who or what is God to you?" that falsified evolution talked about fruit flies and macro-evolution. I think it has been stablished that chaining these two together is nonsensical and makes it embarrassing to call you a scientist. Obviously the scientific case against evolution article is not scientific and is also embarrassing therefore deanstar has properly debunked another one of his sources.

Who was it that mentioned Llama/camel? Lets work with that, until animal actually means two-legged.

That was me. I think people should stop posting on this thread. Let this become his echo chamber. By spending time here, we are diverting attention and hits from more fruitful threads.

He is either trolling or hopelessly wilfully ignorant. Either way, engaging him in a scientific context is a waste of calories.