Is the theory of evolution true?
- Thread starter PetriFB
- Start date
DJ Erock said:
I believe that there was animals like dinosaurus, but I don't believe evlution theory .......
Compare functions of car and man ...and you see that there is similarities....but we know that natural selections didn't form cars, but people have planned and built them ........
There are many ways for animals to become fossilized, but it is always rare. They can get buried under a mudslide, covered by volcanic ash, fall into a tar pit, ect...
The reason they are all underground is that dust and soil are constantly deposited on the surface of the Earth. Anything old is generally found under this accumulated material.
One reason (there are many), that fossils aren't the result of floods is the order often found in fossil sites. There might be a fossil layer with volcanic ash on top, followed by another fossil layer, ect. Also, species that represent older forms are generally found towards the bottom, and newer ones on the top. This has nothing to do with size or how corpses would settle out of flood debris. If a flood put them there, they would be all mixed up.
There is also the proof of radio-carbon dating, which I'm sure is too complex for you to understand.
The reason they are all underground is that dust and soil are constantly deposited on the surface of the Earth. Anything old is generally found under this accumulated material.
One reason (there are many), that fossils aren't the result of floods is the order often found in fossil sites. There might be a fossil layer with volcanic ash on top, followed by another fossil layer, ect. Also, species that represent older forms are generally found towards the bottom, and newer ones on the top. This has nothing to do with size or how corpses would settle out of flood debris. If a flood put them there, they would be all mixed up.
There is also the proof of radio-carbon dating, which I'm sure is too complex for you to understand.
Please explain. It does take a long time, you know.
And also, cars aren't living things.
You can't say that there weren't Neanderthals at one point, so what do you think happened to them? You think they and humans co-existed at one point? Why can't we find a human skeleton that dates back to the times that we find dinosaur skeletons, seeing as they were all around at the same time. Or are dinosaurs actually older, and humans just appeared after they were gone? If you don't believe in evolution, fine, but you've got a lot of explaining to do about the history of earth and how things have become what they are now.
You can't say that there weren't Neanderthals at one point, so what do you think happened to them? You think they and humans co-existed at one point? Why can't we find a human skeleton that dates back to the times that we find dinosaur skeletons, seeing as they were all around at the same time. Or are dinosaurs actually older, and humans just appeared after they were gone? If you don't believe in evolution, fine, but you've got a lot of explaining to do about the history of earth and how things have become what they are now.
To leopold99:
You point is well taken and basically irrefutable, but PetriFB either is one of the mutations that has no mind or has not yet discovered how to use it, perhaps too busy looking for sites put up by people of similar kind. I suspected as much in my first post (only the three letters: Y e s ) because I did not want to waste time on one whose mind is inoperative.
He has at least three times complained that eye could not suddenly appear as they are too complex. - He is correct, they did not as James R patiently explained but of course, that was a wasted effort as there is no functional mind in PetriFB's head.
I posted again that the human eye is a second rate design compared to the octopus eye with it higher resolution, greater sensitivity and the retina first in the light path where it should be, instead of behind all the support structure of the retina. (blood vessel, nerves etc.) I like tell the ID people that it is really an SD (Stupid Designer) that made the human eye, if there was a designer.
I asked Petri if his God was (1) Drunk when designing the human eye or (2) just practicing up for the octopus, which God wanted do well as they were more important than humans to God. Strangely he has ignored even direct questions.
My second post was really to James R as I was curious to know if he knew about one of the 40 or so entirely different eyes that have evolved independently - namely the one with only a single photo sensitive cell mounted inside the eye on a short stalk and moved by tiny mussels to scan the image, pixel, by pixel. (Eye itself can not move. Creature is "flea size.") If James has replied, I missed it so made his name bold above.
This post is to you; to suggest that you are wasting your time. Just ignore PetriFB as I do. He is a mutant, incapable of learning. His genes will not pass down very far before evolution eliminates them.
You point is well taken and basically irrefutable, but PetriFB either is one of the mutations that has no mind or has not yet discovered how to use it, perhaps too busy looking for sites put up by people of similar kind. I suspected as much in my first post (only the three letters: Y e s ) because I did not want to waste time on one whose mind is inoperative.
He has at least three times complained that eye could not suddenly appear as they are too complex. - He is correct, they did not as James R patiently explained but of course, that was a wasted effort as there is no functional mind in PetriFB's head.
I posted again that the human eye is a second rate design compared to the octopus eye with it higher resolution, greater sensitivity and the retina first in the light path where it should be, instead of behind all the support structure of the retina. (blood vessel, nerves etc.) I like tell the ID people that it is really an SD (Stupid Designer) that made the human eye, if there was a designer.
I asked Petri if his God was (1) Drunk when designing the human eye or (2) just practicing up for the octopus, which God wanted do well as they were more important than humans to God. Strangely he has ignored even direct questions.
My second post was really to James R as I was curious to know if he knew about one of the 40 or so entirely different eyes that have evolved independently - namely the one with only a single photo sensitive cell mounted inside the eye on a short stalk and moved by tiny mussels to scan the image, pixel, by pixel. (Eye itself can not move. Creature is "flea size.") If James has replied, I missed it so made his name bold above.
This post is to you; to suggest that you are wasting your time. Just ignore PetriFB as I do. He is a mutant, incapable of learning. His genes will not pass down very far before evolution eliminates them.
Last edited by a moderator:
...so, God intentionally alters genes to create genetic defects?
Here are a few of God's creations:
Down's syndrome
Cystic fibrosis
Muscular dystrophy
sickle cell anemia
Neurofibromatosis
Spina bifida...
...and I thought life was sacred and babies were innocent. Maybe they are being punished for their naughty thoughts in the womb.
Here is a whole page of genetic diseases.
Here are a few of God's creations:
Down's syndrome
Cystic fibrosis
Muscular dystrophy
sickle cell anemia
Neurofibromatosis
Spina bifida...
...and I thought life was sacred and babies were innocent. Maybe they are being punished for their naughty thoughts in the womb.
Here is a whole page of genetic diseases.
These ever-so-often continuous postings questioning evolution on a "Sciforum" are irritating, dumb and silly.
Evolution is a fact, and has been for more than a few centuries now. It is the theories that explain the "how" of evolution that are sometimes put in question.
Evolution as a "fact" cannot be debated. We can easily show anyone "evolution in action" in the lab or in the field: Drosophila melanogaster. Clear example is all the 400 sub-species of dogs that have been selectively bred over the last 300 years - only about 50-100 generations.
Evolution is a fact, and has been for more than a few centuries now. It is the theories that explain the "how" of evolution that are sometimes put in question.
Evolution as a "fact" cannot be debated. We can easily show anyone "evolution in action" in the lab or in the field: Drosophila melanogaster. Clear example is all the 400 sub-species of dogs that have been selectively bred over the last 300 years - only about 50-100 generations.
Petrib:
This is not only a gross oversimplification, it is an outright distortion.
Evolution doesn't just predict similarity, it predicts a specific PATTERN of similarity. That pattern is known as a double-nested hierarchy.
Winace does a far better job than I ever could at explaining the differences between the pattern of similarities observed in Darwinian evolution, and that of you 'car' example, which arise through common design. In fact, I asked him the exact question you have asked us about a year ago. Fancy that.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2060079&postcount=8
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2060090&postcount=9
Perhaps you should learn a little about evolution before attempting to criticize. No qualified life scientist has EVER claimed "OMG! SIMILARITY = EVOLUTION!"
This is not only a gross oversimplification, it is an outright distortion.
Evolution doesn't just predict similarity, it predicts a specific PATTERN of similarity. That pattern is known as a double-nested hierarchy.
Winace does a far better job than I ever could at explaining the differences between the pattern of similarities observed in Darwinian evolution, and that of you 'car' example, which arise through common design. In fact, I asked him the exact question you have asked us about a year ago. Fancy that.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2060079&postcount=8
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2060090&postcount=9
Personally, I think that these threads which question evolution should be automatically sent to the Cesspool.
IMO, not one post in this thread has any idea about how different species came to being, let alone why it is all here
is it things at all ?
no, it is one organism, LIFE
and what we see today has all been manufactured by "seeds of LIFE" detoxifying a toxic cosmic rock to a LIFE friendly place, where many higher life forms have been allowed to flourish.
no thanks given, all taken and abused
Human beings are sending LIFE back to the dark toxic ages.
But does LIFE care ?
NO, it has already re-seeded.... so humans you are allowed to become extinct NOW
is it things at all ?
no, it is one organism, LIFE
and what we see today has all been manufactured by "seeds of LIFE" detoxifying a toxic cosmic rock to a LIFE friendly place, where many higher life forms have been allowed to flourish.
no thanks given, all taken and abused
Human beings are sending LIFE back to the dark toxic ages.
But does LIFE care ?
NO, it has already re-seeded.... so humans you are allowed to become extinct NOW
PetriFB,
You are correct - evolution must be false - anything complex must be the result of an intelligence. And man is an example of complexity and he was created by a higher intelligence, right?
So that means God must be incredibly complex which means using your very own reasoning that God must have been created by a higher intelligence than him. Who was that?
You are correct - evolution must be false - anything complex must be the result of an intelligence. And man is an example of complexity and he was created by a higher intelligence, right?
So that means God must be incredibly complex which means using your very own reasoning that God must have been created by a higher intelligence than him. Who was that?
spidergoat said:
Sin has destroy also genes...... we eat poisons with food (harmful and dangerous additives) and also by that way we change weak and bad genes to our descendants ........and there a lot of more things by which we transfer bad things to genes of our children ...
PetriFB,
An answer that he always existed is just a cop out isn't it? And completely reverses your assertion that complexity must have a designer.
I guess we would have to conclude that God came into existence by ACCIDENT then, correct? But how could that be possible? How could something so incredibly complex just appear from nowhere withour a designer?
If you cannot answer this then it entirely destroys your assertion that complexity needs a designer, doesn't it?
And, eternity, sounds complex to me, what intelligence designed eternity, so that your eternal God could exist?
Well now you have created a conflict and paradox for yourself haven't you?. You have clearly asserted that ANYTHING complex must have been created by an intelligence, and God must be the most complex thing imaginabale. How can something so complex exist if it it didn't have an intelligent designer?
An answer that he always existed is just a cop out isn't it? And completely reverses your assertion that complexity must have a designer.
I guess we would have to conclude that God came into existence by ACCIDENT then, correct? But how could that be possible? How could something so incredibly complex just appear from nowhere withour a designer?
If you cannot answer this then it entirely destroys your assertion that complexity needs a designer, doesn't it?
And, eternity, sounds complex to me, what intelligence designed eternity, so that your eternal God could exist?
Last edited: