Question for Evolutionist's

reply to post by Hydroman


Seems like you've been brainwashed and not read the bible. Show me one place in the Bible it says to eat a cracker?

EDIT: Nvm leaving this thread now.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
DNA records and fossil records are NOT Repeatable, Observable, Testable....... scientific analysis of evolution.

DNA records are observable. How else do they study them? You can test them. Take dna of a chimp, take dna of a human and compare them. That's easy. Fossils are observable. You dig them up, compare them to others you have dug up. Look at the similarities between them.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
Seems you don't understand evolution ether, but who can blame you.

So you admit that you don't understand it? You said "either". Just wondering.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


well actually , i do understand evolution. where did you get that i didnt?

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
Seems like you've been brainwashed and not read the bible. Show me one place in the Bible it says to eat a cracker?

EDIT: Nvm leaving this thread now.

edit on 16-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

The cracker is unleavened bread. This is what they ate when Jesus broke the bread and said that it was his body. Lol. Crackers are unleavened bread. They just weren't called crackers back then. Lol again. Yes, run little boy.

Have you read the bible? Lol.

BTW, you still aren't being honest with yourself on your relationship with the creator of the universe. You know you won't ask him because you know that you will not get an answer. I've been through this too friend. It's not easy to admit that.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by bennygrass
reply to post by Hydroman

 

yeah, i know.

sadly it won't convince a creationist because it didnt evolve into a charizard overnight, they simply dont understand evolution

Seems you don't understand evolution ether, but who can blame you.

"You don't understand evolution either"
-Doesn't even believe in evolution.
Leaves thread
Successful troll is successful.

Glad to see you got your rocks off.

Originally posted by boony
Evolution is a religion. No evidence and believed by faith.
Can any evolutionist show me
Repeatable
Observable
Testable....... scientific analysis of evolution.
When the hard facts come up all an evolutionist can do is hide behind the word science. Not science as an act.
Evolution operates outside of science.

The usual cry of a person who is unwilling to accept any evidence at all.


When something is not 100% provable. As many things are. Usually an intelligent human being will choose with the side that has the most evidence to support it's claims.

In this case evolution wins hands down over religion. There is much more evidence to support the theory of evolution than there is evidence to support creationism.

And remember evolution is a theory. It does not claim to be the absolute 100% factual truth. That's why it's called a theory. However religion on the other hand does make that bold 100% absolute truth claim.

So despite the overwhelming amount of evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is a much higher burden of proof to uphold the creationists claims because for a creationist there is no room for revision or addendum.


George Carlin says it best........No troll here

So, I guess he's been shut down? I can't believe he left like that. I thought we were having a good conversation....

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by TravisT

 

I'll go through the one's i know about, but before i do let me tell you.

NONE OF THOSE ARE VESTIGIAL.

-Junk DNA - WHO SAYS ITS JUNK? Scientist's aren't even close to decodeing dna of what they might think is "Junk".
-Wisdom teeth - Can be explained with changes to the modern diet.
-Coccyx(tail bone) - Has at-least 4 other muscles attached to it, without it we wouldn't even be able to sit down on a chair.
-Appendix - Plays a role in the immune system, been proven to be functional a organ.

Claiming any part of the human body is VESTIGIAL just makes your theory rather silly.

edit on 15-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

I love how you knock the "junk DNA" down, but then say that scientist know for sure that the appendix plays a proper role in the immune system, cause that hasn't been proven, since little kids get theirs removed, and show no side effects. Yes, it could have been used in the past to break down a diet that humans used to eat in the past, but seeing as how it can be removed with little, to no, consequences should show you that humans have evolved.

Coccyx-Yes, you're absolutely right, if we didn't have it, we wouldn't be able to sit down, but the fact remains, it's a tail bone.....tail.....show me some humans that have tails. If we haven't evolved, show me more humans that have a tail than humans who don't, because it seems like that would be an evolution to me. But hey, make more excuses.....

Also, the whole wisdom teeth, as you put it, is a "change", or what some people like to call an evolution, but hey, lets not get into semantics here.

But I do like how you completely ignored planataris muscle. I guess if you can comment on 4/10, it automatically dismisses everything else, especially when you have a bad explanation for it.

might i add that you are attacking the wrong scientific theory in regards to creation and a creator. you should start with abiogenesis. its a compelling theory and yet still a marvelous mystery. it is coming incredibly close to a breakthrough though.

evolution is only the theory of how life diversifies.....
which has much evidence in support of it.

but just because we cant prove how inorganic matter turns into organic matter doesnt mean we say, "god did it"

because thats bad science.

did he leave?
without saying goodbye?

i was enjoying the debate.

Originally posted by boony
Evolution is a religion. No evidence and believed by faith.
Can any evolutionist show me
Repeatable
Observable
Testable....... scientific analysis of evolution.
When the hard facts come up all an evolutionist can do is hide behind the word science. Not science as an act.
Evolution operates outside of science.

I came into this thread to learn and have some questions answered, about evolution. I have to say that this thread, although not comprehensive, is packed with knowledge. This is an informative thread about the scientific reality of evolution.

I dare any inquisitive mind to use this thread to explore the science, the theories, through the links of scholarly, peer reviewed evidence, of a developing scientific study on the history of live on this planet. There is probably enough in thread to get a degree!

Awesome thread, if you can learn to dodge the troll, who is always there, no matter where you are, like a personal demon. If you took a class at a university you would pay more, go though more hoops, meet more trolls and be challenged just as much, no wait, more, for the same information.

Thanks you ATSer's for hanging in there and continuing to teach us what you know, 'cuz I learned at lot.

reply to post by windword


You'll learn more if you click the link in my signature that gives information on evolution.

Regards.

reply to post by bennygrass


I was going through all the replies since I last visited and I was wondering myself why people were confusing the start of life with evolution. I too would like to see things changed to the topic of abiogenesis, since that is the core of this debate in all reality.

im a little late in the game, but i just want to throw this idea out there

i regularly encounter the nonsense argument that science requires just as much faith as religion, but there is a vital difference between having faith in something and having confidence in it

i dont have faith that when i drop an apple it will fall down towards the ground, i have confidence that it will because i have witnessed and experienced gravity

faith is simply confidence without any real or substantial justification

fossil records, the fact that different species are found in different ages of strata and not in others, mountains of evidence to support evolution and an ancient earth in a 4.4 billion year old solar system are not enough to sway this thumper.

yet he expects us to be swayed by the genealogy of adam to jesus as factual evidence for a 6000 year old earth and the same tome of wonders as the fact that disproves evolution....



Im afraid we are all wasting our time and out of sheer morbid curiosity we continue to do so.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

We have a case of Homo Sapien Sapien evolving into Trollus Ignoramous in this very thread right before our very eyes!

I wasn't going to post until I saw this one. Very clever. I like it.
And very true in a sense. All this thread is, is another one to cause arguments.

There is no proof there is a god, and while people argue this countless times, it's been proven that the earth has been around for far longer than 6000 years.

Information on Carbon Dating can be found here. This is a proven scientific method of dating, and disproving many Creationist theories. Not only that, with fossils and found DNA of creatures that have been preserved, I very much believe that Evolution exists.

And who is to say that the Bible Story for creationism was a metaphor for Evolution, what's not saying that God didn't create the creatures, so that they could evolve and adapt to their environment? Oh right. It's not in the Bible.

reply to post by constantwonder


Nope theirs much more proof then just genealogy. I could provide factual evidence by scientific means to support a young earth but by doing so i'd be wasting my time.

"don't bother me with the evidence, since i've already made my mind up" - that should be the atheist's creddo.

Surprise surprise... this got ignored...... any comments OP of his supporters??

In the human body, the nerve that extends from the back Of the voice box, goes down the neck, round a major ventricule of the heart, then back up the neck to connect to the brain. Now, this route is obviously not logical, and to design this feature, would be ridiculous, and certainly not the actions of an omnipotent being... Now, here's the clincher... This feature is also present in the giraffe, it still has the convoluted route, which is about 6m in this instance! This feature originally comes from fish, and is still present in mammals from when the evolutionary tree split. You see, in fish, this route is actually the shortest route possible for the nerve.

Now, this isn't proof.... But it's certainly strong evidence... Which is all we can provide.

Any comments OP?

PA