Originally posted by Ashyr
cant agree more,
these people seem to not see the blatant contradictions. the stupid statement "OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME ALL OF A SUDDEN!"
2 monkeys give birth to a human,
any proof of evolution. would still be continuing. so what monkeys only popped out humand for a certain period of time. and over a long period of time these SMALL changes happend. oh no its adaption. no wait. its so small the mutation over millions of years... COMON!> get out of here.
hahah. its like this. u put a pen to paper with a stop watch and a keen eye and you say.
HAS IT CHANGED YET? no.... HAS IT CHANGED YET?......no..... HAS IT CHANGED YET?........NO
OOOOOOOOOO look it changed... "ALL OF A SUDDEN" so its not over millions of years. it wasnt and now it is. thats all a sudden. so u add lots of these up and u have "EVOLUTION" hahahah what a crock.
the only think i think thats close to what people are saying is.
adaptation. survival of the fittest as in . adapt or die.
harsher climates. new surroundings. new ways of life. adapt or die.! pretty much.
a animal will grow to the size of its environment.
Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
I'm not sure where you got your information, but you really should check your fact's first, other wise you look like an uninformed or uneducated fool.
Darwin was NOT a scientist, he was simply a philosopher ...
(read "The origin of the species" i mean really read it, including the COMPLETE title.) also he was a racist, & a sexist.
Some other uninformed or uneducated fool posted that "we dont see transitional species because we are all transitional species". Really? Really? That's what you came to the table with? Making a statement that is that, well, that SILLY should have him or her hiding in shame. Does one individual JUST wake up one morning and he's different, what magic wand was used to make him different, does this "magic moment" just happen to individuals or whole species? Is your magic wand "billons & billons of years"?
Evolution is NOT science, it is a philosophy, it HAS no scientific evedince to support it, those clinging desperately to it do so simply to avoid acknowledgement of a Creator, again, it is a philosophy that has to be accepted on faith, LIKE most religions.
Originally posted by WatchRider
No Darwin was someone who created the disease of Atheism. He himself NEVER said that man came from evolution but that animals did.
Yet all his worship-people like to somehow hijack the theory of evolution (A THEORY, not necessarily a fact) and somehow make the flimsy connection of man jumping from the tree's from a monkey-guise.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
Originally posted by WatchRider
You know that Darwin converted to Catholicism on his death-bed right?
`Shortly after his death, Lady Hope addressed a gathering of young men and women at the educational establishment founded by the evangelist Dwight Lyman Moody at Northfield, Massachusetts. She had, she maintained, visited Darwin on his deathbed. He had been reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, had asked for the local Sunday school to sing in a summerhouse on the grounds, and had confessed: "How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done." He went on, she said, to say that he would like her to gather a congregation since he "would like to speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savouring the heavenly anticipation of bliss."
`With Moody's encouragement, Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston _Watchman Examiner_. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the _Reformation Review_ and in the _Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland_ in February 1957. These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the _Christian_ for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."'
That should basically tell all you atheist's and Darwin-lovers something more than evolution is going on.
Enough said also
Originally posted by doubleplusungood
I hate racism but what has that got to do with anything?
He lived in the 19th century, cultural and social morals were different back then. You cannot hold someone who lived in the past to todays moral standard.
Does being racist mean that whatever else he did be discounted?
That is patently ridiculous.
Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races.
Originally posted by true-life
3. Because the aliens have been present for millions of year and there is clear evidence of tampering with our DNA then we were genetically modified throughout time.
Originally posted by true-life
As a scientist:
1. If you don't believe that there are ET and there has always been ET presence then you are in denial. The evidence is all around you.
4. 400,000 years ago the original monkey-man had no concept of self-awareness. All of a sudden the human changed 30,000 years ago and can think. There is a missing link. Science and Darwin can't explain it because they are not using the full knowledge available to us.
5. What Darwin claims to be changes in evolutionary process are aliens playing and changing life by small amounts in this vitro dish for their enjoyment. Yes - we are one of them.
Originally posted by Semicollegiate
Evolution implies that we could have evoled from something that was not human. It need not be a monkey. The human ancestry could be along a line completely separate from the modern monkeys and apes. Maybe we always had the biggest brain amoung the primates, and that particular fossil han't been found.
1) why we sweat. No other land animal wastes water sweating
2) Why we can hold our breath.
3) Why we stand up right.
4) Why we lost our hair
5) Why we don't have a twitch reflex in our skin. All land mammals have a twitch reflex to repel insects.
6) Why we have subcuteaneous fat all over our bodies. Animals have it in their muscles but not under their skin.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Genetics very clearly shows that we have common recent ancestry with modern primates. You don't get practically identical genomes without shared recent ancestry.
Care to name an animal that can't hold its breath?
How would aquatic ape hypothesis explain this? I think the current hypothesis (a shrinking forest surrounded by a savannah) explains our upright stance well.
Many aquatic mammals have hair. Many land mammals don't have hair.
I don't even know what this is supposed to be.
Wrong wrong wrong