Why is evolution still relevant?

www.medicalnewstoday.com...

This article admits how little we know about DNA and the gene sequence. Remember when scientists came up with the phrase "junk DNA". Junk = we don't know what to make of it. This just goes to show that most people put their faith in evolution from an ape because we share 96% or 98.5% of the DNA code depending on what source you look into. Scientists say the same thing about the rat or mouse, or rodent. You might say, 'yeah, but .1% makes a huge difference in relation to DNA.' This is true, and can be argued for both sides, and is evidence of nothing except that we are totally unique compared to all animals

www.reasons.org...

Scientists have to change their story again now that their "junk" DNA is active. They will never figure "it" out.

I have a few questions for you.

How long ago do you believe earth was created? If you don't know for sure, guess, based on creationism research. 6000 years ago?

Were humans created at the same time as the Earth? If not, how long ago do you think, just estimated.

Thank you. This is for the OP.

Obviously, you can believe whatever you want, and no one is going to change anyone's paradigm.

But here is what evolutionists have trouble admitting... You worship your "god" called science and your religion is evolution. Religion has a few definitions, one being - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Admit that you must have faith, because you can't prove we came from apes, or a rock, or primordial soup, or from the big bang.

Have faith evolutionists!!

I'll be back in a few days to clean up your mess again.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by six67seven]

reply to post by six67seven


awhh answer my question before you go.. i have always wanted to know this answer!

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
I have a few questions for you.

How long ago do you believe earth was created? If you don't know for sure, guess, based on creationism research. 6000 years ago?

Were humans created at the same time as the Earth? If not, how long ago do you think, just estimated.

Thank you. This is for the OP.

Even though this is irrelevant to the subject matter and you only want to know so you can use it against me, I will play along.

I'm not sure when Earth was created. Based on the bible and creationism, it would be around 6000 years ago. But I think the other possible answer could be millions of years if there have been hundreds or thousands of civilizations before us. There is an idea out there by Michael A. Cremo who wrote The Hidden History of the Human Race: Forbidden Archaeology, and Human Devolution. He has traveled the world, studied all religions, fossils, and discoveries hidden from the public. You can find a youtube series on The Hidden History of the Human Race. Very fascinating!! He lends the idea that we are first and foremost spiritual beings created from a greater consciousness from the cosmos, but instead of me butchering his ideas, you should just watch the videos or read the books if you want.

After all that, I'm just not sure how old the earth is and I don't see anything wrong with not knowing and admitting it.

reply to post by six67seven


So the question is who created us? The only way i can believe the creation theory is if you people admit there are aliens and we were created by mixing aliens with chimpanzees.

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
reply to post by six67seven

 

So the question is who created us? The only way i can believe the creation theory is if you people admit there are aliens and we were created by mixing aliens with chimpanzees.

That IS the question and also, I'm not asking you to believe the creation theory. I don't know who "you people" are either. If there were aliens, I'm pretty confident they wouldn't need or want to mix anything with chimps.

www.antievolution.org...

reply to post by six67seven


The answer kind of amazed. I got the idea you were attacking evolutionists.
It seems you are only attacking those parts of evolution where the answers are missing.
Am I correct ?

To the OP

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by six67seven

 

The answer kind of amazed. I got the idea you were attacking evolutionists.
It seems you are only attacking those parts of evolution where the answers are missing.
Am I correct ?

To the OP

(Mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection) + 3.8 billion years = macroevolution.

That is what I'm attacking. That is nothing if not a leap of faith.

reply to post by BeastMaster2012


Where do find in the Bible that the Earth was created 6000 years ago? According to what I read in the Bible the Earth is eternal. The creation account given was just a historical record for Man's time here. Biblical evidence shows that the Earth was already here eon's before God planted man on it.
Evolution has been debunked. Only those who limit creation to Genesis 1 and Science use evolution as a sword to strike at creation believer's. It's still amazing to me that those who claim that there is no God actually are working evil against God's people by teaching and attacking every word that a Christian says.

If I were a athiest I believe I would just be quite simply because I would have nothing to teach. But no, the athiest believing in nothing have to go on the attack. I have never saw a athiest that would not go on the attack and actually surf different site's to spew their poison. Why is this? Is it that they have their own agend's preaching their faith.

Evangelical Athiest. They are on this site as well as many other's preaching the doctrine of the Devil. "The fool has saith in his heart, there is no God. Foolishness is ignorance, and I thought that was the reason for Above Top Secret, to deny Ignorance. The largest conspiracy in the universe is the battle being waged for human souls and Athiesm seems to be the stongest tool the evil one can use at this point.

Evolutionist an Athiesm run together hand in hand. Now we have these so called Christians who believe God created every being through or by evolution. Can't anyone see it for what is? More ignorance more delusion.

The first attack by evil used in the garden of Eden, The serpent changed the word of God and decieved Eve. This is the same teaching some used today by mixing evolution with creation.

But don't worry soon thing's will be sorted out. Imagine this though If the athiest win and are correct life will end and we will have no further thought's on the matter. But if the believers win, Hell's hot for the loser. Which side do you want to be on?

reply to post by six67seven


Actually Lucy is now thought to have died of a tumor that deformed her skull. Most evolutionist (athiest) try to steer argument's away from her.

Evolution is just as fake as golbal warming, except evolutionist hid their e-mails better...lol

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Loken68]

reply to post by six67seven


Ok fair enough. I'm sorry if you already mentioned it but can you point me out where you replace macro evolution with. ( except faith )

Cause macro evolution is not solely based on imagination you know.

Originally posted by six67seven
Obviously, you can believe whatever you want, and no one is going to change anyone's paradigm.

But here is what evolutionists have trouble admitting... You worship your "god" called science and your religion is evolution. Religion has a few definitions, one being - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Admit that you must have faith, because you can't prove we came from apes, or a rock, or primordial soup, or from the big bang.

Have faith evolutionists!!

I'll be back in a few days to clean up your mess again.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by six67seven]

Call evolution a religion all you want.
As long as it's a religion of logic and reasoning, and using evidence to prove theories, then I'll gladly take it.

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by six67seven
Obviously, you can believe whatever you want, and no one is going to change anyone's paradigm.

But here is what evolutionists have trouble admitting... You worship your "god" called science and your religion is evolution. Religion has a few definitions, one being - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Admit that you must have faith, because you can't prove we came from apes, or a rock, or primordial soup, or from the big bang.

Have faith evolutionists!!

I'll be back in a few days to clean up your mess again.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by six67seven]

Call evolution a religion all you want.
As long as it's a religion of logic and reasoning, and using evidence to prove theories, then I'll gladly take it.

Evolution is a theory within itself so how can you prove a theory with a theory.... ? If that is your science, i want nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by six67seven
Obviously, you can believe whatever you want, and no one is going to change anyone's paradigm.

But here is what evolutionists have trouble admitting... You worship your "god" called science and your religion is evolution. Religion has a few definitions, one being - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Admit that you must have faith, because you can't prove we came from apes, or a rock, or primordial soup, or from the big bang.

Have faith evolutionists!!

I'll be back in a few days to clean up your mess again.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by six67seven]

Call evolution a religion all you want.
As long as it's a religion of logic and reasoning, and using evidence to prove theories, then I'll gladly take it.

Evolution is a theory within itself so how can you prove a theory with a theory.... ? If that is your science, i want nothing to do with it.

You can't completely prove something in science, it doesn't work like that.
There is enough evidence to show that we know that SOME THINGS evolve, this is undeniable, so why is it so hard to believe that little changes can lead to big changes?

i dont know why people post links and don't explain what i am to take out of the link. Earlier you linked to the 1909 Grand Canyon cover up and i have no idea why you linked that. Are you linking to it because you are showing that science covers up things? Or are you linking it to add to the creation debate. Doesn't make sense.

As for that link you replied to me with i don't know what you want me to do with that PDF... I am not going to read multiple pages when i don't know why you are linking to it. I don't have 10-20 minutes to read through that without a hint of why i should read it.

designertext.com...

As for the chimpanzees, what do you say to us sharing 98% of our DNA with them? Is that a coincidence?

-------

Originally posted by Loken68
Evolution has been debunked.

Are you kidding me? Sorry i couldn't read anymore after that.
-------

What do you say about Ardi, the newest ancient ape? At 4.4 million years old, Ardi is a cross between humanoid and ape. You complain about Lucy not having enough bones, this is almost a complete find.

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The biggest surprise about Ardipithecus's biology is its bizarre means of moving about.

All previously known hominids—members of our ancestral lineage—walked upright on two legs, like us. But Ardi's feet, pelvis, legs, and hands suggest she was a biped on the ground but a quadruped when moving about in the trees.

Her big toe, for instance, splays out from her foot like an ape's, the better to grasp tree limbs. Unlike a chimpanzee foot, however, Ardipithecus's contains a special small bone inside a tendon, passed down from more primitive ancestors, that keeps the divergent toe more rigid. Combined with modifications to the other toes, the bone would have helped Ardi walk bipedally on the ground, though less efficiently than later hominids like Lucy. The bone was lost in the lineages of chimps and gorillas.

According to the researchers, the pelvis shows a similar mosaic of traits. The large flaring bones of the upper pelvis were positioned so that Ardi could walk on two legs without lurching from side to side like a chimp. But the lower pelvis was built like an ape's, to accommodate huge hind limb muscles used in climbing.

I see Ardi as the missing link. It is a humanoid with Ape feet.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by six67seven

 

Ok fair enough. I'm sorry if you already mentioned it but can you point me out where you replace macro evolution with. ( except faith )

Cause macro evolution is not solely based on imagination you know.

Not sure if I keep reading it wrong, but "I'm sorry if you already mentioned it but can you point me out where you replace macro evolution with. ( except faith )" doesn't make sense. I think you mean "what" rather than "where", so I will address that.

If you are asking me what I believe if its not macroevolution, then its irrelevant, because the issue is not what I believe personally, its the fact that there are no facts of macroevolution. You cannot point to any discovery, any lab experiment, any evidence to factually say... "there it is, he was once rock, he made it to soup, once was a fish, crawled onto land and developed lungs, became bipedal, now look at us. It only took 3.8 billion years." Thats why they call it and will always call it the missing link. It will forever be missing, because it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
i dont know why people post links and don't explain what i am to take out of the link. Earlier you linked to the 1909 Grand Canyon cover up and i have no idea why you linked that. Are you linking to it because you are showing that science covers up things? Or are you linking it to add to the creation debate. Doesn't make sense.

As for that link you replied to me with i don't know what you want me to do with that PDF... I am not going to read multiple pages when i don't know why you are linking to it. I don't have 10-20 minutes to read through that without a hint of why i should read it.

designertext.com...

As for the chimpanzees, what do you say to us sharing 98% of our DNA with them? Is that a coincidence?


-------

Originally posted by Loken68
Evolution has been debunked.

Are you kidding me? Sorry i couldn't read anymore after that.
-------

What do you say about Ardi, the newest ancient ape? At 4.4 million years old, Ardi is a cross between humanoid and ape. You complain about Lucy not having enough bones, this is almost a complete find.

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The biggest surprise about Ardipithecus's biology is its bizarre means of moving about.

All previously known hominids—members of our ancestral lineage—walked upright on two legs, like us. But Ardi's feet, pelvis, legs, and hands suggest she was a biped on the ground but a quadruped when moving about in the trees.

Her big toe, for instance, splays out from her foot like an ape's, the better to grasp tree limbs. Unlike a chimpanzee foot, however, Ardipithecus's contains a special small bone inside a tendon, passed down from more primitive ancestors, that keeps the divergent toe more rigid. Combined with modifications to the other toes, the bone would have helped Ardi walk bipedally on the ground, though less efficiently than later hominids like Lucy. The bone was lost in the lineages of chimps and gorillas.

According to the researchers, the pelvis shows a similar mosaic of traits. The large flaring bones of the upper pelvis were positioned so that Ardi could walk on two legs without lurching from side to side like a chimp. But the lower pelvis was built like an ape's, to accommodate huge hind limb muscles used in climbing.

I see Ardi as the missing link. It is a humanoid with Ape feet.

Uh, thats an ape. Does anyone else see this? This is ridiculous.

"All this happened in strict secrecy. Some of us science writers knew a little about what the scientists were up to, but we could only guess when they’d finally finish working on the fossil." Secrecy... sounds like our current admin.

Just because they put a drawing of an ape standing upright with one foot on a branch does not mean sh*t. But you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

That is a blog anyway.

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by six67seven
Obviously, you can believe whatever you want, and no one is going to change anyone's paradigm.

But here is what evolutionists have trouble admitting... You worship your "god" called science and your religion is evolution. Religion has a few definitions, one being - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Admit that you must have faith, because you can't prove we came from apes, or a rock, or primordial soup, or from the big bang.

Have faith evolutionists!!

I'll be back in a few days to clean up your mess again.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by six67seven]

Call evolution a religion all you want.
As long as it's a religion of logic and reasoning, and using evidence to prove theories, then I'll gladly take it.

Evolution is a theory within itself so how can you prove a theory with a theory.... ? If that is your science, i want nothing to do with it.

You can't completely prove something in science, it doesn't work like that.
There is enough evidence to show that we know that SOME THINGS evolve, this is undeniable, so why is it so hard to believe that little changes can lead to big changes?

Again, you are using "evolve" loosely. things evolve, within the species. This is because a mother does not give birth to duplicate... its impossible. Both the father and mother pass on genes, so its always different, always evolving, which is called microevolution. But once again macroevolution is impossible. You cannot find a frog birthing a lizard or a fish. Yes, over many many years, some frogs adapted to become poisonous and some are just tree frogs.... but they are all frogs. Apes cannot mate with apes and adapt into human beings, with a spirit, mind, and soul.... even if you throw 3.8 billion years in the middle.

reply to post by six67seven


lol you don't know about Ardi? Where were you last year... BTW that wasn't just some random dudes blog, it was the Discover Magazine's blog. I thought, like most people, you would have heard about Ardi. Ardi takes a crap all over Lucy in regards to evidence presented.

Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Ancient Skeleton Could Rewrite the Book on Human Origins

www.washingtonpost.com...

'Ardi,' Oldest Human Ancestor, Unveiled. "Ardi" dates to 4.4. million years and may be the oldest human ancestor ever found.

news.discovery.com...

www.time.com...

Ardi Is a New Piece for the Evolution Puzzle

from the Time article:

In a series of studies published in the Oct. 2 special issue of Science — 11 papers by a total of 47 authors from 10 countries — researchers unveiled Ardi, a 125-piece hominid skeleton that is 1.2 million years older than the celebrated Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) and by far the oldest one ever found. Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, a co-leader of the Middle Awash research team that discovered and studied the new fossils, says, "To understand the biology, the parts you really want are the skull and teeth, the pelvis, the limbs and the hands and the feet. And we have all of them."

That is the beauty of Ardi — good bones. The completeness of Ardi's remains, as well as the more than 150,000 plant and animal fossils collected from surrounding sediments of the same time period, has generated an unprecedented amount of intelligence about one of our earliest potential forebears. The skeleton allows scientists to compare Ardipithecus directly with Lucy's genus, Australopithecus, its probable descendant. Perhaps most important, Ardi provides clues to what the last common ancestor shared by humans and chimps might have looked like before their lineages diverged about 7 million years ago.