We haven't attained to the understanding of the way the mind of God works in its detail. We might never. But you ae an idiot if you won't accept salvation over eternal dissolution.
Again, you may not have attained the understanding, but I have.  Only an idiot would accept something based on the word of brainwashed fools. So you believe in evolution right along with the brainwashed fools.  You can do one of these experiments to gain your proof of evolution; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolutionYou can Google "evolution is impossible" to see all the reasons why evolution is impossible. Yeah, and you can publish whatever the fuck you want on the goddamned Internet you fucking troll. Literally do one of these experiments, you'll see evolution yourself in real fucking time. That's actual fucking proof right in front of your goddamned face and you refuse it. Even though it's right fucking there. You might as well go shove your head in the sand while you're at it you fucking lunatic. Poor baby.  Your pet religion is going down the tubes. Why not hop onbard the Christian religion, and be saved? That projection though. If you refuse to even try a scientific experiment, even though it provides literally every single step for proof, then what the fuck type proof do you want? At this point, nothing anyone can say over the Internet will change your mind. You've reduced my faith in humanity. Go cling to your book for the rest of your pitiful life. That's the point. All the experiments that seem to prove that evolution is real, are cause and effect things. They are done by people, otherwise they wouldn't be experiments. People are the cause, and the effect is whatever it is. But way beyond that is the fact that all the things that people do are cause by whatever cause them to do them. So, evolution is cause and effect stuff. But since the description of evolution includes stuff that doesn't fall into the class of C&E, evolution is false. It's as simple as that. You mean cause and effect that was set in motion by zeus right? |
|
|
|
C&E has been proven all over the whole earth in millions or billions of happenings. True spontaneity has never been proven anywhere, even one time.
So this whole "free will" your god gives us means nothing since we are slaves to the cause? He will come with with some bullshit explanation of that, watch. |
|
|
|
ugh where to start here. Abiogenesis or informally the origin of life,[8][9][10] is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. This has nothing to do with your claims that god created us. What you are claiming is that complex life (humans) were created spontaneously, that's what the bible says, right? God created animals and humans instantly.
Quite the opposite. Everyone knows that life that reproduces, does so according to the laws of reproduction, complex as they are. The question is, are the mutations responsible for the so-called evolutionary changes spontaneous? or programmed in via cause and effect? Why would anyone think that God created anything spontaneously? When people get together and make something as complex as a modern automobile, they don't do it spontaneously, even in their thinking. They do it through tremendous amounts of thoughtful design. Why would anyone think that God just spontaneously "blooped" the universe together in all its great complexity? But He might have, because He is extremely different than we are in a multitude of ways. We just don't know how God what He did. But if you suggest that what He did is like what we do, then nothing that exists was spontaneously made. This means that there is no evolution.
''None of them simply jumped into life spontaneously. All of them became alive through complex cause and effect actions in nature'' What? I thought god created them all in 1 day.
You seem to be limiting the abilities of God rather than showing spontaneity.
''I totally agree with you that there isn't any spontaneous generation of life... no evolution'' So you agree god doesn't exist? Since when is evolution the spontaneous generation of life? Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3]
Seems like you are the one without google or a dictionary.
I just showed you in my previous two posts here and above in this post, that we don't really know how God created the universe. But the result is cause and effect, no spontaneity. Evolution is spontaneity, regarding the mutations. There isn't any spontaneity, not even in the mutations. It is like the random choices that people make. They aren't really random. It's just that people don't understand all the cause and effect that go into their thinking, so they suggest random thinking. Spontaneity doesn't really exist, either. There isn't any thing that happens spontaneously. It's all programmed by C&E. We think that some things happen spontaneously, because we are too week to follow the programming. C&E has been proven all over the whole earth in millions or billions of happenings. True spontaneity has never been proven anywhere, even one time. So what's the point of hell and heaven or sin if every choice I make is already programmed it means it's not my fault, thanks for debunking your own religion. I rest my case your honor. |
|
|
|
Wait, are you trolling or being serious? |
|
|
|
Some countries or state have been accepting this kind of marriage. Here in the Philippines, we do not recognize it as legal or something like that. How about in your country?
No Im not in favor in same sex marriage let's get it practically we all know that same sex marriage is a sin the eyes of our Lord but still some country is allowing a same sex marriage and man is created for woman not woman is created for woman and not man is created for a man. Their real gender is the gender what God gave them since they are born not the gender they wanted. Why would god make gays if he is against them? How stupid are you? Do you even use your brain to think logically about things or are you just another brainwashed religious nutjob? |
|
|
|
I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO. Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't. But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules'' It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change. There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life. Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist. Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is? You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god. The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are: 1. Semantics; 2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything). 1. Transitional Fossils 2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors 3. Vestigial Traits 4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes. 5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. 6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild. The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.) 7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us. Actually, most of the things that you talk about in your points, are the exact things that show that there isn't any evolution, when analyzed in detail. Show us a spontaneous generation of complex life and you will disprove evolution, just like that. Very easy? How come we have thousands of different proofs for evolution yet no single evidence for the spontaneous generation of life that you claim your god did? Astargarth makes a very good post here: He provides some solid evidence that evolution exists. However your rebuttal seems to be "well we didn't see it happen, so it's false". But this logic applies directly to your belief that humans were spontaneously created by god - if this was true, you need to provide evidence of spontaneous generation of life yourself, to raise your evidence to the same level as that of Astargarth. But you can't, because no such evidence exists. It's all very well to say "this might have happened", but without any evidence you are automatically behind in the argument, because anyone can say "this might have happened" - that doesn't give them any sort of credibility. Where does Astargath provide any solid evidence that evolution exists? The only place that there is anything close to solid evidence for evolution, is in the dreams of evolutionists. Where did I say "... so it's false?" All I did was answer Astargath's question, even though I may have shown how unanswerable it is. Since you are trying to say that I said something that you know well that I didn't say, you are shown to have bad faith, and should be regarded with caution. You seem to suggest that spontaneous generation of human life doesn't exist. But that is exactly what evolution is... spontaneous generation of life, be it human or otherwise. Make up your mind. What do you believe in? Look at all the living things around. None of them simply jumped into life spontaneously. All of them became alive through complex cause and effect actions in nature, according to the complex laws of reproduction physics. That we know of, it has always been like this. I totally agree with you that there isn't any spontaneous generation of life... no evolution, in other words. If there was any, it would have to be back in the beginning, when everything was being put into place, because everything else in nature operates by cause and effect, not spontaneous generation. In other words, no evolution. Evolution is a hoax. ugh where to start here. Abiogenesis or informally the origin of life,[8][9][10] is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. This has nothing to do with your claims that god created us. What you are claiming is that complex life (humans) were created spontaneously, that's what the bible says, right? God created animals and humans instantly. ''None of them simply jumped into life spontaneously. All of them became alive through complex cause and effect actions in nature'' What? I thought god created them all in 1 day. ''I totally agree with you that there isn't any spontaneous generation of life... no evolution'' So you agree god doesn't exist? Since when is evolution the spontaneous generation of life? Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3] Seems like you are the one without google or a dictionary. |
|
|
|
the google documents has not been updated since last days
and no one confirmed if we joined the compaign or not
so i not sure
i did join since 2 days but my username not added to the google doc
can anybody update us ?
Unless luptin tells you you are accepted, you are not accepted + your post quality is pretty poor. |
|
|
|
I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO. Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't. But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules'' It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change. There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life. Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist. Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is? You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god. The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are: 1. Semantics; 2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything). 1. Transitional Fossils 2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors 3. Vestigial Traits 4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes. 5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. 6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild. The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.) 7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us. Actually, most of the things that you talk about in your points, are the exact things that show that there isn't any evolution, when analyzed in detail. Show us a spontaneous generation of complex life and you will disprove evolution, just like that. Very easy? How come we have thousands of different proofs for evolution yet no single evidence for the spontaneous generation of life that you claim your god did? Astargarth makes a very good post here: He provides some solid evidence that evolution exists. However your rebuttal seems to be "well we didn't see it happen, so it's false". But this logic applies directly to your belief that humans were spontaneously created by god - if this was true, you need to provide evidence of spontaneous generation of life yourself, to raise your evidence to the same level as that of Astargarth. But you can't, because no such evidence exists. It's all very well to say "this might have happened", but without any evidence you are automatically behind in the argument, because anyone can say "this might have happened" - that doesn't give them any sort of credibility. And I'm asking for evidence that it happened, I know no one can go back in time to see it happen, no one can go back in time to see evolution happening that's why we have evidence that points to evolution. If all the evidence that points to evolution is wrong it would be logical to at least have the same amount of evidence for the spontaneous generation of life which is what is claimed to be true, how is it possible to have 0 evidence for what is supposed to be true and a ton of evidence for what is supposed to be a hoax. Weird |
|
|
|
It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...
I agree. When someone has an ideology or a religion to defend, rationality stops Absolutely good points. When people believe in science theory, especially theory that can't defend itself in the face of stringent analysis - like evolution theory - they have a religion going for themselves. The religion of evolution. ''Believe in science theory'' Why do you need to believe in it? You can study it and see it for yourself that is real unlike religion, no matter how much you study it you will never find evidence for the existence of gods. And then all you have to do is look at some good science theory that is contradicted by other good science theory, to see that science theory is an unknown. I have yet to see another scientific theory that contradicts evolution but if you know one tell us, enlighten us please. First, the point was that science theory is not known to be factual, because there can almost always be theory that contradicts it. So, evolution theory is not known to be factual, either. Regarding evolution theory, we don't need theory to contradict it to show that it is false. Reality contradicts it in the way that every so-called fact of evolution can have some other, more realistic explanation than evolution. Besides this, there are the things of nature that show that evolution is impossible. Nothing is known to be factual 100% I don't really see your point here. Things in nature like what? I'm still waiting for the examples of spontaneous generation of complex life as you claim god did. So, we might have a few trees that have been alive for hundreds of years. Why are you waiting for examples of the spontaneous making of complex life that God did? That was 6,000 years ago. If you think any of them are still alive, go out and find them, and the proof that the ones you find are really the ones.I don't see your point here. You continually ask for things that I have shown many times. All you need to do is Google some wording regarding the impossibility of evolution to find many answers to your question. And if you read the supposed rebuttals to the impossibility, you will see that they don't make sense, or that they circular thinking, or that they are based on other things that aren't known to be factual. It's kinda like that other thread, where you ask for the definition of machine. Do you really live in a country where they don't have any dictionaries? Is your Internet so limited that you can't really Google anything? I don't think you are in a funny farm like those guys in that other thread. But I am beginning to question my own thinking on that point. Ok ''an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work:'' Therefore the universe is not a machine so it doesn't need a maker, thanks for clarifying that you are wrong then. |
|
|
|
For me im quite not favor that is against the law of god and the govertment of our country. But there are still many country and state that are legal in same sex marriage, they dont have lost their hope because there are still country where they can getting married.
God also says rape and slavery is ok, you are in favor of those things too? The bible specifically has a manual for slavery and the quran is even worse. |
|
|
|
However, it shows that the Creator is really powerful, and that He is very intelligent, and that He is a very capable designer, and a few other things, as well. Good place to start... with what science reveals about Him. Then, once you accept that He really exists, you can start to look for ways in which He might be revealing Himself to you in more detail. If you find enough of the right details, you might even find that He is offering you eternal life. How does it reveal there is a creator or a designed? I already explained you the problem with saying that nature is designed. How do you know nature is designed? The universe is a machine of machines. Machines have makers. Are you going to say that machine makers don't design their machines? The universe is not a machine, not machines do not need makers therefore the universe doesn't have a maker. What kind of circular reasoning are you using here? The bullshit one? What is the definition of machine here? The fact that the universe acts like a machine full of machines, and that all the machines of mankind are based on the machinery of nature, shows that the universe is a machine. What is the definition of machine? |
|
|
|
It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...
I agree. When someone has an ideology or a religion to defend, rationality stops Absolutely good points. When people believe in science theory, especially theory that can't defend itself in the face of stringent analysis - like evolution theory - they have a religion going for themselves. The religion of evolution. ''Believe in science theory'' Why do you need to believe in it? You can study it and see it for yourself that is real unlike religion, no matter how much you study it you will never find evidence for the existence of gods. And then all you have to do is look at some good science theory that is contradicted by other good science theory, to see that science theory is an unknown. I have yet to see another scientific theory that contradicts evolution but if you know one tell us, enlighten us please. First, the point was that science theory is not known to be factual, because there can almost always be theory that contradicts it. So, evolution theory is not known to be factual, either. Regarding evolution theory, we don't need theory to contradict it to show that it is false. Reality contradicts it in the way that every so-called fact of evolution can have some other, more realistic explanation than evolution. Besides this, there are the things of nature that show that evolution is impossible. Nothing is known to be factual 100% I don't really see your point here. Things in nature like what? I'm still waiting for the examples of spontaneous generation of complex life as you claim god did. |
|
|
|
It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...
I agree. When someone has an ideology or a religion to defend, rationality stops Absolutely good points. When people believe in science theory, especially theory that can't defend itself in the face of stringent analysis - like evolution theory - they have a religion going for themselves. The religion of evolution. ''Believe in science theory'' Why do you need to believe in it? You can study it and see it for yourself that is real unlike religion, no matter how much you study it you will never find evidence for the existence of gods. And then all you have to do is look at some good science theory that is contradicted by other good science theory, to see that science theory is an unknown. I have yet to see another scientific theory that contradicts evolution but if you know one tell us, enlighten us please. |
|
|
|
However, it shows that the Creator is really powerful, and that He is very intelligent, and that He is a very capable designer, and a few other things, as well. Good place to start... with what science reveals about Him. Then, once you accept that He really exists, you can start to look for ways in which He might be revealing Himself to you in more detail. If you find enough of the right details, you might even find that He is offering you eternal life. How does it reveal there is a creator or a designed? I already explained you the problem with saying that nature is designed. How do you know nature is designed? The universe is a machine of machines. Machines have makers. Are you going to say that machine makers don't design their machines? The universe is not a machine, not machines do not need makers therefore the universe doesn't have a maker. What kind of circular reasoning are you using here? The bullshit one? What is the definition of machine here? |
|
|
|
Earth actualy might be flat, how can we really know for sure? What all those scientists lie us and hide the horrible truth? We cant really know, there is no solid evidenses that earth is round.
Photographic an video evidence is pretty solid evidence (Ignoring all the other hundreds of thousands of things that would prove the earth is round) plus 24/7 streaming video of earth from a satellite. |
|
|
|
It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...
I agree. When someone has an ideology or a religion to defend, rationality stops Absolutely good points. When people believe in science theory, especially theory that can't defend itself in the face of stringent analysis - like evolution theory - they have a religion going for themselves. The religion of evolution. ''Believe in science theory'' Why do you need to believe in it? You can study it and see it for yourself that is real unlike religion, no matter how much you study it you will never find evidence for the existence of gods. |
|
|
|
I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO. Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't. But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules'' It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change. There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life. Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist. Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is? You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god. The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are: 1. Semantics; 2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything). 1. Transitional Fossils 2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors 3. Vestigial Traits 4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes. 5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. 6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild. The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.) 7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us. Actually, most of the things that you talk about in your points, are the exact things that show that there isn't any evolution, when analyzed in detail. Show us a spontaneous generation of complex life and you will disprove evolution, just like that. Very easy? How come we have thousands of different proofs for evolution yet no single evidence for the spontaneous generation of life that you claim your god did? |
|
|
|
there is evidence that humanity existed long before the dinosaurs...how can this explain the "evolution"?
LOL, no there isn't. Unless you are getting your "evidence" from creationist websites. Charles Darwin himsalf said humans created dinosaurs so what are you talking about?  What the fuck are you talking about, are you drunk? Charles Darwin neglected dinosaurs as a part of his theory but thankfully, paleontologists continued their work and have exhumed absolutely stunning evidence that Darwin was right. Among the fossil riches some of the most precious are those of feathered dinosaurs, and I can only imagine what Darwin might say if he could see the proof that the swallows in the air and pigeons in the street are living dinosaurs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
