Denial of evolution III
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
I have never witnessed macro-evolution to the degree of a fish becoming a bird. Micro-evolution can and is being witnessed even to this day..... So its not simply pick-and-choose micro-evolution can be seen right now but macro-evolution isn't (to the degree of fish to birds not simply breeding)-
Peace be unto you
That of course is true, but they are still dogs.
This idea of a long time , has nothing to do with the variety of life we have on this earth.
In the first science does not really a solid idea what a species is , there are many points of view on this.
Lets get into evolution now.
If you have a single even if it had DNA in it , so that this cell could divide, and make copies of it's self. And it did this for a long time. Now this cell is the one that is going to mutate into all animal life, into all we see today. What would happen to this cell for this to happen?
So what? We already have established that computers are man made. I get that.
No, the fact that computers evolved means that they also changed over time. Of course, it was humans that made the changes. But, the fact remains that the powerful computers we use today didn't just happen overnight.
What are you talking about? What is that supposed to mean?
Why are theists so fucking clueless? It's quite amazing how your cults have rotted your minds and all you can do is believe in magic. You ignore absolutely everything that's explained to you and regurgitate the same fucking bullshit your cult has beaten into your skull.
I have never witnessed macro-evolution to the degree of a fish becoming a bird. Micro-evolution can and is being witnessed even to this day..... So its not simply pick-and-choose micro-evolution can be seen right now but macro-evolution isn't (to the degree of fish to birds not simply breeding)-
Peace be unto you
your witnessing it is not a requirement.
and you have never seen god either. i dont have a problem with people beliefs so i dont get involved with religious discussions too often.
I was refering to the fact that the evidence for micro-evolution and macro-evolution is significantly different-
Although what is convenient is that not a single 'recent common ancestor' of any specie is alive yet we have some species who practically haven't changed for millions of years. So you can connects the dot without knowing what the dots are.
Peace be unto you
so you acknowledge that evolution does occur?
Although what is convenient is that not a single 'recent common ancestor' of any specie is alive yet we have some species who practically haven't changed for millions of years. So you can connects the dot without knowing what the dots are.
Peace be unto you
some species, by their very nature, are more conducive to change. i am not a biologist so i cannot speculate. i would look at bacteria and start there.
I beg your pardon????
kiddie questions and tough lessons in life (and death) point somehow to creation??
thats either something you just made up to piss me off deliberately - or you accidently missed a few steps.
if you've just missed out a few steps please list them so we can examine their validity
Imaginary? As in, they use their imaginations to make connections?
Some clarity, please.
Do they use their imaginations to ponder a course of evolution based on evidence, or do they use their imaginations pretending there's an invisible magical being waving his hand?
learn to comprehend .... please
Peace be unto you
Comprehension is beneath you.
Ok I thought you could make the connection.
It is not natural for man to die. We see this in our behavior. People will do as much as they can to stay young. People will morn when someone dies. People think life is too short. Some will freeze themselves so that science can bring them back to life in the future. We learn many things in life then it is wasted because we die. Life is too short because we want to explore new things but don't have the time.
Some people that do get tired of life it is from old age and sickness, or a hard time in life. But when your 25, death is the last thing you think about if your healthy. Some people never get over a lost child or wife or parent. It is not natural for man to die.
They make connections trying to fit it with evidence based upon their preconceived ideas that Evolution in-fact did occur. So they can connect the different species without knowing who or where the 'common ancestors' are between those species. You take away those 'connection dots' you're left with individual lines which would break up their connections between them (like a phylogeny represents)- but because it had had to have happened- the connections are made through imaginary beings for which there is no evidence.
Peace be unto you
Yes, there MUST have been a common ancestor, this is supported by ample DNA evidence that shows the connection between living species. We do not have to provide the common ancestor for each and every species (although they are trying), to prove that evolution is the key to explaining how they came about.
Every time we look for fossils that must be there, they are found. That's what I call evidence. We have found intermediary species between ape-like creatures and humans. This is what one would expect to find if we evolved from an ape-like creature. If God made mankind from scratch, there would be no such fossils.
WRONG!
Death is coded into our genes - just as it is in every species on this planet
why?
because we are related to every species on this planet
How is that a different interpretation? You've simply renamed the cause of mutation.786 said:
Again, you are just renaming. That is not a different interpretation.786 said:
And you have never witnessed an acorn become an oak tree. All you - or anyone, really - has ever witnessed is microgrowth. Macrogrowth is just some preconceived notion you have, which you cannot prove.786 said:
Not the one in a dragonfly's head.hay said:
Hay,
It means they are evolving. It doesn't matter if there was an original creator that started the process.
If you accept that they are changing/adapting you are accepting evolution because that is all that it is saying.
You are suggesting now that a creator made it so they can evolve and change on their own.
If that is the case, then why are you arguing against evolution as a theory, since you are confirming it, since you creator created it.
But, then again, why would an all perfect creator need that, since they should know everything that these entities will encounter they should have everything already in them with no change required.
So, what is more likely all of these creatures evolved over millions and millions of years, since you have confirmed this process. Or, a god keeps creating new species, billions of them over millions and millions of years.
This one god, this one entity is doing all of this.
So, once again, because you are stuck in time and because you want to cling to the fact that science can not prove when or how life started, then that allows you to throw out all of the other evidence that confirms the theory.
It means they are evolving. It doesn't matter if there was an original creator that started the process.
If you accept that they are changing/adapting you are accepting evolution because that is all that it is saying.
You are suggesting now that a creator made it so they can evolve and change on their own.
If that is the case, then why are you arguing against evolution as a theory, since you are confirming it, since you creator created it.
But, then again, why would an all perfect creator need that, since they should know everything that these entities will encounter they should have everything already in them with no change required.
So, what is more likely all of these creatures evolved over millions and millions of years, since you have confirmed this process. Or, a god keeps creating new species, billions of them over millions and millions of years.
This one god, this one entity is doing all of this.
So, once again, because you are stuck in time and because you want to cling to the fact that science can not prove when or how life started, then that allows you to throw out all of the other evidence that confirms the theory.
Is the understanding fundamentally the same? No, then they are different interpretation.
Peace be unto you
- Status