|
Post by southside on Aug 7, 2015 0:47:43 GMT -5
I laugh at anyone's who tries to champion the theory of evolution as reason for God not to exist. It takes more faith and blind disregard of reason and logic to believe evolution than to believe in God.
Yeah, we evolved from monkeys but sadly there are still a shit load of monkeys hanging around as well as all sorts of millions of forms of life. The THEORY itself is predicated on one thing and one thing only, survival and gene mutation to ensure survival. The sheer abundance of different life forms is a direct contradiction to the sole principal evolution is based on. Let alone that you can only reproduce inside your species... Uh that is ABSOLUTELY 100% CONTRADICTORY TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
Logic and reason. Not a gift given to all men.
|
|
|
Post by Raoul Duke on Aug 7, 2015 3:24:20 GMT -5
Thanks for the link! That was hilarious. One of the reasons science is dogmatic is because of the belief that "Matter is unconscious"?. Yeah...I'm pretty sure a hand full of dirt doesn't have feelings. This was equally laughable: Nature is purposeless. That there is no design in nature, and the evolutionary process is merely a mechanical function – there is no higher purpose. What’s speculated is the idea that because we can’t identify what the ultimate purpose is, we assume that there is none (Think: the perimeter of ignorance.) Every function in science serves a purpose, it’s logical to assume that all of the micro-purposes serve a larger one – even if we can’t scientifically identify it or philosophically agree on it. LMFAO!!! Would you like me to dismantle your BELIEFS in the THEORY of evoultion. Perhaps you dont read what rattles you. But perhaps you should as something has been happening with dinosaur fossils that in hawkins own words is going to have to change everything they THOUGHT they knew about CARBON DATING AND EVOULTION. Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her research assistants were working on a T-rex dinosaur fossil and saw medullary tissue (showing that the T-rex had been pregnant). Because no one had ever found this tissue in a dinosaur fossil before, she told her assistant to soak it in acid to be able to study the structures better. When they tried this new approach, they were stunned to find blood vessels, bone matrix and elastic tissues in the fossil, all soft tissues found somewhere they shouldn’t be according to evolution. Schweitzer et al. also found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants. She eventually published a number of papers (references and links below) which right from the first challenged the basic principles of fossilization by stating, “Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia.” Dr. Mary Schweitzer, states, “ When you think about it, the laws of chemistry, biology and and everything else we know, say it should be gone, it should be degraded completely.” (~6:30) Derrick Briggs, curator of invertebrate paleontology at the Peabody Museum at Yale University agrees saying, “ Nobody was imaging that dinosaurs might have had preserved soft tissues… this was totally improbable….We have this clear understanding that part of all biological cycles involves decay. Nature’s set up to break down that material and recycle it. So, it’s just improbable that those kinds of very delicate structures would survive, particularly for millions of years.”
He’s also agreeing that nothing we can verify with science would allow soft tissue to last for millions of years. The obvious conclusion is that they are not millions of years as Creationists have said for long. Remember that evidence from your critics is one of the highest levels evidence you can get. Creationists have that in MANY areas. Evolutionists don’t. Leading evolution experts agree that nothing in science would make it possible for soft tissue to last more than ~100,000 years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2kMlm… ~8:30) Why don’t we know of more soft tissues in fossils? 1) As. Dr. Schweitzer said, she used a new technique with acid to remove bones that almost no one had used before. If more used that method, we’d find more soft tissue in fossils. Dr. Kaye tried to replicate Dr. Schweitzer and found a very large amount of soft tissue with her technique just like she did. 2) There actually are quite a number of other soft tissue finds. A) Soft tissue in fossilized salamandar. creation.com/muscle-and-blood-… www.physorg.com/news176660912…So when you can't explain something scientifically, it means God is at work? Not trying to be dooshy, just trying to understand the point.
|
|
|
Post by Jets Things on Aug 7, 2015 7:07:14 GMT -5
Ridley Scott's Alien-lore is on the right track. Earth was seeded by aliens billions of years ago and all species on the planet, alive or extinct, are a result of intelligent design. Right now, we're in an intergalactic zoo phase and we'll need unheard of scientific discoveries and revelations before the rest of intelligent life in the universe will be revealed to us and that could take hundreds or thousands of years. If we don't destroy the planet first.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Aug 7, 2015 8:24:46 GMT -5
I love the Hampur.
|
|
|
Post by Touchable on Aug 7, 2015 10:59:02 GMT -5
I believe in God or a higher being, whatever you want to call it. Faith fills the gaps science leaves behind. Miracles do happen. I dont see why the two can't coexist. Exactly I've especially never understood why God and evolution can't co-exist. I don't believe everything in the Bible and I don't believe everything that these pencil pushing scientists tell me either. These same dicksucks still can't give me a concrete answer as to whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, yet I'm supposed to believe that they have the answers as to how the universe and life came to be?
|
|
|
Post by Peebag on Aug 7, 2015 11:31:06 GMT -5
VTN Keeps this up ....i found a bible verse plug in for the forum that will shoot verses across the screen daily. Do not force my hand woman
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on Aug 7, 2015 12:01:14 GMT -5
No idea what's going on here so I'm going to bow out gracefully
|
|
|
Post by PK on Aug 7, 2015 12:11:38 GMT -5
I laugh at anyone's who tries to champion the theory of evolution as reason for God not to exist. It takes more faith and blind disregard of reason and logic to believe evolution than to believe in God. Yeah, we evolved from monkeys but sadly there are still a shit load of monkeys hanging around as well as all sorts of millions of forms of life. The THEORY itself is predicated on one thing and one thing only, survival and gene mutation to ensure survival. The sheer abundance of different life forms is a direct contradiction to the sole principal evolution is based on. Let alone that you can only reproduce inside your species... Uh that is ABSOLUTELY 100% CONTRADICTORY TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Logic and reason. Not a gift given to all men. Lines of reasoning like this are why I rarely ask people if they "believe" in evolution...I ask whether they "understand" evolution, which clearly you do not (the "there are still monkeys around" comment is a dead giveaway).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2015 13:14:05 GMT -5
If Darwin stumbled across this thread he would have burned his journals and opened a taco stand.
|
|
|
Post by Hotman on Aug 7, 2015 15:14:47 GMT -5
If Darwin stumbled across this thread he would have burned his journals and opened a taco stand. What kind of tacos? I could go for some tacos actually thanks a lot asshole. Think I may have to hit up taco bell, make a run for the border. I'm probably gonna order like a dozen tacos, lol. wish there was a jack-in-a-box around... they got good ones too.
|
|
|
Post by southside on Aug 7, 2015 16:02:00 GMT -5
I laugh at anyone's who tries to champion the theory of evolution as reason for God not to exist. It takes more faith and blind disregard of reason and logic to believe evolution than to believe in God. Yeah, we evolved from monkeys but sadly there are still a shit load of monkeys hanging around as well as all sorts of millions of forms of life. The THEORY itself is predicated on one thing and one thing only, survival and gene mutation to ensure survival. The sheer abundance of different life forms is a direct contradiction to the sole principal evolution is based on. Let alone that you can only reproduce inside your species... Uh that is ABSOLUTELY 100% CONTRADICTORY TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Logic and reason. Not a gift given to all men. Lines of reasoning like this are why I rarely ask people if they "believe" in evolution...I ask whether they "understand" evolution, which clearly you do not (the "there are still monkeys around" comment is a dead giveaway). So why can't humans fuck monkeys and procreate? Smart ass. They come from the same DNA right? If something evolves for survival it means it couldn't survive as it was...thus monkeys shouldn't be here because evolution supports survival of the fittest, the strongest, thus the very principal it is built on is flawed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2015 16:06:07 GMT -5
So Favre has been to Mars.
|
|
|
Post by Hotman on Aug 7, 2015 16:07:11 GMT -5
Lines of reasoning like this are why I rarely ask people if they "believe" in evolution...I ask whether they "understand" evolution, which clearly you do not (the "there are still monkeys around" comment is a dead giveaway). So why can't humans fuck monkeys and procreate? Smart ass. They come from the same DNA right? If something evolves for survival it means it couldn't survive as it was...thus monkeys shouldn't be here because evolution supports survival of the fittest, the strongest, thus the very principal it is built on is flawed. you just arent smart enough to understand it fully. you need to open your mind and things
|
|
|
Post by thebigragu on Aug 7, 2015 16:09:37 GMT -5
Lines of reasoning like this are why I rarely ask people if they "believe" in evolution...I ask whether they "understand" evolution, which clearly you do not (the "there are still monkeys around" comment is a dead giveaway). So why can't humans fuck monkeys and procreate? Smart ass. They come from the same DNA right? If something evolves for survival it means it couldn't survive as it was...thus monkeys shouldn't be here because evolution supports survival of the fittest, the strongest, thus the very principal it is built on is flawed. Always answer Atheists like this southside. There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically, but most of those criticisms are highly specific. There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this. Generally speaking, it’s accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way. Other flaws in the theory of evolution can be separated into three basic areas. First, there is the contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” Second is the problem in projecting “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons. First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution. Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium. The fossil record might seem to support punctuated equilibrium, but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time. While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead. Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate. The second flaw is the problem of extending “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else. Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another. Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God. Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory all together. We don’t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically.
|
|
|
Post by jcappy on Aug 7, 2015 16:14:02 GMT -5
Lines of reasoning like this are why I rarely ask people if they "believe" in evolution...I ask whether they "understand" evolution, which clearly you do not (the "there are still monkeys around" comment is a dead giveaway). So why can't humans fuck monkeys and procreate? Smart ass. They come from the same DNA right? If something evolves for survival it means it couldn't survive as it was...thus monkeys shouldn't be here because evolution supports survival of the fittest, the strongest, thus the very principal it is built on is flawed. Really don't want to get involved with this thread but that's just not at all how it works. Traits develop to ensure survival of the fittest, yes, but that doesn't mean the previous genome becomes extinct. An evolutional mutation might happen 1/10000 generations in a completely healthy species, but that mutation will lead to a new generation with the mutated trait. The classic example is Darwin and his finches - finches on one island were perfectly capable of surviving without narrow beaks, but it provided an advantage to those same species of finches who, generations earlier, had moved to another island with a different ecosystem. Monkeys still exist because its not like one day every single ape decided to get up and walk in the highlands - it was only a small sub-sect, and over generations of living a different lifestyle, certain traits were adapted. The original apes doing their thing in trees and the jungle were still more than capable of living how they lived, and have continued to live, for centuries. As for why you can't fuck a monkey and procreate, yes we come from the same DNA but there are chromosomal differences. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, apes have 24. For successful mating, in any species, the chromosome pairs must match and be in the proper sequence - this is the reason even certain human beings are unable to procreate. There are more in depth reasons, but this is the main one. DNA is largely shared between most living things on Earth - we share 50% of our DNA with a banana, doesn't mean I can fuck one. Carry on.
|
|