Debunk evolution once and for all

reply to post by MrXYZ


You can obtain books written in Chinese in the near future regarding this, with over 50,000 Drawings detailing the "Opperating System"...

We hope to have an English version avaliable too... (but Not written by me...).

Well, what I want to know is, at what point did male and female become separate entities within this theory of evolution.

I mean why would such a change take place. Looking at the different roles of males and females in different species, they complement each other, having different roles. It doesn't seem the best survival method to take this route.

If cells just divide and replicate in the earliest stages (as in fetal development) why didn't they just continue to do that just create clones and evolve, why bother with male and female?

I think if people genuinely believe that they themselves evolved from monkeys then, that just says a lot about that person ;-)

reply to post by FamiliarBoyOfGoodFortune


Sexual reproduction leads to more genetic variation than asexual reproduction. Therefore, it is better at propagating evolution.

reply to post by oozyism


To OP - all the arguments you use in this thread were debunked at least 100 of times - meet The Talkorigins archive of creationist claims

reply to post by Xcalibur254


That's great...but still doesn't explain why.

And in fact, your answer implies Creator with infinite wisdom rather than evolution (not knowing what your particular take on this is...)

reply to post by Firepac


Definition of Faith. First and second line state my point perfectly.

dictionary.reference.com...

I don't think you understand my point any better than the person that post was for. Read my thread and maybe if your open you mind you will get it.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by nottheonlyone]

reply to post by FamiliarBoyOfGoodFortune


If we were created by an entity with infinite wisdom, why do we have so many problems with our body? You'd think if we just appeared out of nonexistence, God would have left out such vestigial parts as the appendix and the tailbone. Yet, we have both of these parts that don't serve any real purpose except to get in the way.

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

You can obtain books written in Chinese in the near future regarding this, with over 50,000 Drawings detailing the "Opperating System"...

We hope to have an English version avaliable too... (but Not written by me...).

Oh ok, be right back, getting my time machine ready to go into the near future.

Agree with prvious comment; if God created humans, he could create them perfectly both in body and in mind. If evolution evolved our bodies then there would be a "tell tale" mess left behind.

So which is true:
- Why is child birth so painful? [flawed evolution]
- Why do so many people have back problems [flawed evolution, we still have the backs of monekys in trees, it was never built to support our weight walking]
- Why do our eyes get constantly worse as we get older?
- Why can a human being stay uinderwrater for a ridiculous amoiunt of time [flawed evolution - tapping into our pre-hibernating functions]

Originally posted by FamiliarBoyOfGoodFortune
Well, what I want to know is, at what point did male and female become separate entities within this theory of evolution.

I mean why would such a change take place. Looking at the different roles of males and females in different species, they complement each other, having different roles. It doesn't seem the best survival method to take this route.

If cells just divide and replicate in the earliest stages (as in fetal development) why didn't they just continue to do that just create clones and evolve, why bother with male and female?

I think if people genuinely believe that they themselves evolved from monkeys then, that just says a lot about that person ;-)

Why do you think only non-complex beings are "self-reproducing"? What happens if you make a baby with your sister? It's most likely gonna end up a retard. That doesn't matter if you're a cell with only 1-2 functions as long as u can still do those. Mixing the gene pool is a major prerequisite for complex lifeforms such as humans.

I think if you seriously believe we "evolved from todays monkeys", that says a lot about you and how much you know about evolution. We had common ancestors with today's primates...but we didn't evolve from them. Check out Wikipedia or any good biology book

There's 2 possibilities:

A) Evolution is right...and all the facts support that possibility.
B) The supreme being who created us is incredibly incompetent and if it/he/she would work for me, I'd fire it/he/she.


[edit on 29-8-2010 by MrXYZ]

reply to post by hippomchippo

Oh ok, be right back, getting my time machine ready to go into the near future.

Are you being Sarcastic ???

These books are at present, being Written and Edited…

I am not sure how long it will take to go through publishing…


[edit on 29-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

We already have a science dedicated (at least in part) to the evolution of technology. It's called archaeology.

Technology is an extension of our evolution. It is manifested, externalized manipulation of our environment. It is nothing more than culture...material culture. In different parts of the world, different technologies have come about to handle different situations (and we may have overshot our natural mandate, but that's another story for another post).

Evolution is nothing more than an organism changing from generation to generation to match its surroundings.

It's not quick. It's not simple. It's rather messy. And, it's reciprocal (as in: it's not just humans who change - everything living changes to correspond to the other "beings" in the environment).

Environment could be described as: the three dimensional space that encapsulates any one being and which include other beings (including plants) without necessarily overlapping their environment to the letter. This could also be called niche: the area of space that an organism occupies within which other beings interact reciprocally.

As far as God...

I don't think evolution and God are mutually exclusive at all. If we're going to say that God created the universe, then naturally God created atoms, molecules, DNA and the other chemical and biological factors and processes that weigh heavily on evolution.

In short: God = Evolution...or if you demand a hierarchy (which I think is more a product of our Western outlook than some sort of natural, universal order) you could metaphorically say "Evolution is God's blueprint."

Jesus said (and I paraphrase): "Look under every rock and I am there..." and also "I dwell with in you[r heart]" or something to that effect.

Um...pretty straight-forward answers from the enlightened One Himself, no?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by FamiliarBoyOfGoodFortune

 

If we were created by an entity with infinite wisdom, why do we have so many problems with our body? You'd think if we just appeared out of nonexistence, God would have left out such vestigial parts as the appendix and the tailbone. Yet, we have both of these parts that don't serve any real purpose except to get in the way.

Well, we have problems with our body because we are not meant to live forever. Everything that happens to you is a test simply to remind you that you are not invincible or perfect. Only Adam (AS) was created perfectly. Actually most do not know that Adam (AS) did not get old as we do, and looked the same when he died as he did when he was created by God in his adult form.

As for tail bones and appendixes, I can't say about that, but it wasn't so long ago (I remember as a child it used to happen a lot) tonsils were taken out quite a lot too. Nowadays they take them out much less realising that they play an important part in the the immune system being one of the first lines of defence.

But in all this, what science will never surmount is the secret of the soul, Which will remain a secret, which without we simply components of the earth and return back to it.

Does man not consider his origins? He comes from a dirty place on his mother and a dirty place on his father, and then he associates partners with his Creator.

reply to post by Sphota


You wrote…. Quote;

Jesus said (and I paraphrase): "Look under every rock and I am there..." and also "I dwell with in you[r heart]" or something to that effect.

Are you referring to a verse from “The Gospel of Thomas” ? Quote;

77. Jesus said,

“It is I who Am The LIGHT
which is above them all.

It is I who Am The All.

From Me did The All come forth,

and unto Me did The All extend.

Split a piece of wood,
and I am there.

Lift up the stone,
and you Will Find Me there.”

As you can see this refers to the LIGHT or LIGHT of the World,
as in Light that allows you to see i.e. the visible light spectrum
and NOT a human form as many would have us believe....

According to the early Christian writings, The LIGHT spoke
through the carpenter of Nazareth called Jesus today...

The LIGHT is the LIFE of God according to,
"The Gospel According to John" Chapter 1. in the first 13 verses.

The LIFE of God was the LIGHT of MAN.

Not sure what you are getting at (depending on your beliefs)

But I am Not a church goer... nor do I subscribe to "Roman Doctrine"
nor any other denominational offspring of Roman Doctrine....

[edit on 29-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Why do you think only non-complex beings are "self-reproducing"? What happens if you make a baby with your sister? It's most likely gonna end up a retard.

Not that I'm encouraging you to go make it with your sister, but this is actually false. Children of incestuous relationships are generally perfectly healthy, unless both its parents are carrying some really weird recessive genes. And they can be healthy for generations and generations, though certain inconsequential features (nose size, ear shape, double toenails, etc) may become "dominant" in the family line and result in an odd look.

if inbreeding were the doom that it's often claimed to be, humans simply wouldn't exist outside Africa; either that or Africans would rule the earth, which would be populated by slump-headed haemophiliac ape-people.

reply to post by FamiliarBoyOfGoodFortune


Little known fact, the early Christians believed that the soul was corporeal, and that when the body died the soul remained with it until the Second Coming. It wasn't until the Middle Ages that theologians beginning claiming that the soul was metaphysical and existed separate from the body. So, in truth materialists have more in common with original Christian beliefs than dualists.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by nottheonlyone]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Why do you think only non-complex beings are "self-reproducing"? What happens if you make a baby with your sister? It's most likely gonna end up a retard.

Not that I'm encouraging you to go make it with your sister, but this is actually false. Children of incestuous relationships are generally perfectly healthy, unless both its parents are carrying some really weird recessive genes. And they can be healthy for generations and generations, though certain inconsequential features (nose size, ear shape, double toenails, etc) may become "dominant" in the family line and result in an odd look.

if inbreeding were the doom that it's often claimed to be, humans simply wouldn't exist outside Africa; either that or Africans would rule the earth, which would be populated by slump-headed haemophiliac ape-people.

That statement is actually wrong

Btw, are you claiming Africans are inbreeding?

[edit on 30-8-2010 by MrXYZ]

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by oozyism

 

To OP - all the arguments you use in this thread were debunked at least 100 of times - meet The Talkorigins archive of creationist claims

OOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

an example would be good lol

it seems you have no arguments of your own, meaning you have no brain of your own to think for yourself.

Kind of embarrassing don't you think>?

We're arguing with a person that tried to compare evolution of computers to humans.... and called it debunking evolution once and for all, and claims you would not be able to tell the difference of biological evolution and technology. I loved earlier when someone called you out on " if god is real then there must be a god to make that god" which you defended yourself weakly by saying "well what about believing in an eternal god?" which just like that other guy said you put your tail in your mouth.

Obviously you've convinced yourself that these things are to be true because you're still arguing 22 pages later.. So why even start a thread to debate it?

Im gunna start a thread saying "God has to be real" and back it up with 0 evidence, similar to what you did.