It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 382
31
<< 379  380  381    383  384  385 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

DNA is evidence of evolution.
Big lie. If this were true scientists would have thrown there hands up in the air long ago and agreed with everything about evolution. There is a relationship no doubt but that doesn't mean it got there the way you believe it did.

Huh? So because they prove one thing, it means that every other detail and hypothesis is automatically 100% correct? Fallacy. Science is about learning. They never just throw their hands up in the air and go, "Oh! Guess we're done. We officially know everything". They try to learn more. They already threw their hands up in the air a long time ago regarding the process of evolution. Now they are working out the details.


See another lie, there is nothing that proves evolution is to blame for all this, it could have been a creator as well. I don't believe in either, I think there is something we have yet to learn about.


It also could have been the stay puff marsh mellow man, but we know that creatures evolve, and it fits the profile and observed slow change over time. We can measure and test it all, from the genetic mutations to the natural selection. We can observe it today in any creature you want.

If you can find a single creature in the world that doesn't pass genetic information and mutations to its offspring, you MIGHT have a case.

One might be able to get away with saying that evolution isn't the ONLY thing that causes slow change over time, but it is definitely one of them and the process is proven. I'll say it again. The process of evolution is proven and can be observed in every single organism on earth.

Let me guess, next you'll repeat the original fallacious argument that you can't observe speciation in humans.

Like I said 200 pages ago, if you are going claim that I'm lying or "evolution" is lying, you need to bring forth the research and scientific data that shows otherwise. Prove any of it wrong, even just a small piece.

edit on 10-5-2012 by Barcs because: i suck at spelling




posted on May, 10 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I must have been talking to you for to long.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Huh? So because they prove one thing, it means that every other detail and hypothesis is automatically 100% correct? Fallacy. Science is about learning. They never just throw their hands up in the air and go, "Oh! Guess we're done. We officially know everything". They try to learn more. They already threw their hands up in the air a long time ago regarding the process of evolution. Now they are working out the details.
Depends on what your referring to. If its just speciation according to the details presented on wiki, then ya, I agree. Anything else is speculation.





It also could have been the stay puff marsh mellow man, but we know that creatures evolve, and it fits the profile and observed slow change over time. We can measure and test it all, from the genetic mutations to the natural selection. We can observe it today in any creature you want.
Only problem is we don't have any documentation telling us that the puff marsh mellow man did it. On the other hand there is a book with documentation telling us a creator did it.




If you can find a single creature in the world that doesn't pass genetic information and mutations to its offspring, you MIGHT have a case.
Depends, do you have anything that claims that any mutation is proof of evolution?




One might be able to get away with saying that evolution isn't the ONLY thing that causes slow change over time, but it is definitely one of them and the process is proven. I'll say it again. The process of evolution is proven and can be observed in every single organism on earth.
Nice, so how you going to seperate the two and find out how much if any of it is evolution? You just admitted to me that they have no way to identify evolution in humans but your sure it exists.




Let me guess, next you'll repeat the original fallacious argument that you can't observe speciation in humans.
Is it fallacious? You yourself admitted it can't be witnessed in humans.




Like I said 200 pages ago, if you are going claim that I'm lying or "evolution" is lying, you need to bring forth the research and scientific data that shows otherwise. Prove any of it wrong, even just a small piece.
I don't have to, you did it for me. You already admitted that different changes can't be identified as to there origon, so there you go.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

You know Barcs, here are some things to think about when your trying to debunk intervention....

Lets assume for just a moment that your correct, and we do share a commen ancestor with apes. Natural selection did a piss poor job in this case as we are the furthest thing from fitting in on this planet. When you compare apes to humans and how they interact with there surroundings, it's obvious there is no comparison. Apes fit into there enviroment and we don't. So please answer the simple question of why we evolved into being further away from fitting in. As apes we fit in a hell of a lot better than we do now thats for sure. So if it was so much better, why did we venture out to making things harder for ourselves, sicker, more complicated, being more suseptible to sickness, having to depend on processes to survive, where as before we didn't.

There is only one plausable answer, we are not from here, and this is not our enviroment. This is why I coined the term that we de-evolved. You see we actually went backwards in our evolution and took a few million years worth of growth backwards. Of course that isn't possible so once again, we obviously aren't from here.. Now you could argue and say that we now depend on adaptation but there is a little catch to that. There is no way that we could have evolved just to depend on our ability to adapt. The reason is simple, in order to adapt, you would agree that something has to change. Why on earth would something have to change if it was working so well to beign with?. I understand that in the eyes of evolution these decisions could be made, but it goes against the idea of survival of the fittest. It's a lot like throwing a man and a fish in the ocean and then wondering which one will survive longer. Obviously the fish will, he is in his element and the man is not. All we have done at this point is create a swimsuit as an idea of our adaptation. The bottom line is that we still are not in our element.

We distance ourselves from the rest of the life on this planet, and then we isolate ourselves for protection. This is why we live in buildings and homes, with heat and AC, rather than out in the wilderness where the apes live. Now why on earth would we have given up such a fitting lifestyle, to be burdend with how things are now? You can't possibly say that things are easier now, its more work either way you look at it. I'll give you a hint, its because we never evolved, we were placed here just like it eludes in the bible. Earth is not our home, are the exact words. Now many things can be taken out of context in the bible and there were also supernatural dealings as well making some impossible things, possible. But how many different ways can you take Earth is not our home? For some reason religious folks took it in the spiritual sense even though there is nothing that gives reason for it.

We don't fit in here, never have, never will. We will continue to be rejected by this planet and as it stands now we are hanging on by the skin of our teeth with respect to atibiotics. IMO these viruses are just this planets natural way of eliminating things that don't belong here, and we have just been lucky as hell to hold it at bay. Another good example is how apes don't get near as sick as we do. Now someone on here was trying to claim that the sampling rate could misslead us on this but the fact is, apes live in the wild without vaccines, without medical intervention and without any of the things that we require. They don't even filter water to drink, and they don't get sick. We would. It's serioulsy a no brainer to see who has the advantage here. After all what do you think is easier, having to process your water to drink it, or just being able to drink it and not getting sick?

When you compare our existance on this planet with everything else that is here, you will see that most other life shares a common interest with other life here. Not us, we share nothing here, in fact all association we have with life on this planet is either forced or industrialized through the need of food.

So tell me, why did we give up the urge to swing from trees, why did we pick up so many new foods on our menu, that has done nothing but make us sicker? Why did we choose to make things harder for ourselves by building homes.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

Look, Barcs, I'm really excited for you. Imma let you finish. But von Däniken, Sitchin, and Pye are the greatest scientists of all time.

Let's just assume for a moment that you're correct, because you (and others in this thread) have posted links to objective evidence that's both peer-reviewed and reproducible that supports evolution and all I can seem to drag out is the same batch of regurgitated subjective arguments that I started with and always retreat to when the going gets tough. Never mind that I can't seem to accurately explain the information in my own links or that my confusion over basic scientific concepts in no way jibes with my claims of being in an MS level student at some point in my life. Or that my arguments are usually nonlinear incoherent babble, so I probably typed this thing out in Word or Notepad or something and had someone proofread it for me before posting.

It's obvious that we dont' fit in here! Why can't you just see it? Apes fit in better than we do, they just never got around to being the only species on Earth to populate the entire planet. Oh, and by the way, I coined the term "de-evolved", even though a bunch of scientists who lived two hundred and fifty years go described the process and it was used in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. And then that band started calling themselves Devo. Bunch of biters...

The only plausible answer is that we're not from here. And because we're not from here, we're forced to adapt. And by adapt, I mean evolve. Which means no other animal has evolved. Ever. Because they're from here. Only us. Even though I deny that evolution takes place in human beings. Just disregard the fossil evidence, the genetic evidence, the morphological evidence, IGNORE ALL THE EVIDENCES! Because they can't be right and they are totally inconclusive.

Why can't you see that we're just hanging on by the skin of our itsthetooth here with antibiotics? There's just no way our population could be growing exponentially. Even though all of the data says it is. Because we're doing so poorly and need antibiotics to survive. Even though antibiotics weren't discovered until the late 1800's. Back when our species was doing so poorly that it had only reached a measly population of about 1.5B people.

We just don't fit in here. Even though we can eat every plant and animal on Earth. And can use the organs of other species of animals in place of our own. And take diseases that obviously only exist in humans, even though we observe them in other species, inject them into other animals, and the extract the antibodies from those animals, and use them to prepare vaccines for us. And viruses are the planet's immune system to kill things that don't belong here, so no other species of animal ever get's viral infections. Ever.

So when you ignore all of the evidence and just get depressed and subjective about it, you'll clearly see that we don't belong here because everything else hates us and just wants to take our ice cream. Even though we invented ice cream to redundantly adapt to something or other from back when we were on our homeworld.

edit on 11/5/2012 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


I must have been talking to you for to long.
Strangely you are correct but not in the way you meant it. You have been writing your low inteligence nonsense and lying to me and others for far longer than I would like as I usually avoid dishonest liars like the plague.
edit on 11-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Depends on what your referring to. If its just speciation according to the details presented on wiki, then ya, I agree. Anything else is speculation.

I already said what I'm referring to. The process of evolution. It's proven. End of story.



Only problem is we don't have any documentation telling us that the puff marsh mellow man did it. On the other hand there is a book with documentation telling us a creator did it.

There is also documentation saying the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. That doesn't make it true.



Depends, do you have anything that claims that any mutation is proof of evolution?

Is that supposed to be a joke? Look up evolution on wikipedia. Genetic mutation + natural selection = evolution. That's the definition of the word, but alas for some reason I have to repeat it constantly because you refuse to believe science.



Nice, so how you going to seperate the two and find out how much if any of it is evolution? You just admitted to me that they have no way to identify evolution in humans but your sure it exists.

First you have to find evidence that suggest this other thing exists. I admitted no such thing. Evolution is PROVEN in humans. It can be measured and tested. Stop being dishonest, I've said that a hundred times and once again you've provide no evidence whatsoever to suggest I'm wrong or that your theory is right.




Like I said 200 pages ago, if you are going claim that I'm lying or "evolution" is lying, you need to bring forth the research and scientific data that shows otherwise. Prove any of it wrong, even just a small piece.
I don't have to, you did it for me. You already admitted that different changes can't be identified as to there origon, so there you go.


Lie much? I didn't say anything close to that.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 

You know Barcs, here are some things to think about when your trying to debunk intervention....

I'm not trying to debunk intervention. I'm defending the science behind evolution, which is strong. Intervention is an interesting theory but there's no reason it has to go against evolution. This is your fatal error. You make ancient alien theorists look bad as most of them don't go against modern science to force their conclusions. The meat and potatoes of intervention is about genetic manipulation.

The rest of your post is speculative nonsense and essentially just going back to the same argument from the beginning. Saying we don't fit in to our environment when we're the most successful species on the planet right now is a joke. You have no evidence whatsoever to suggest humans went backwards in evolution. The only time creatures need to change is when the environment changes. It doesn't go against natural selection, or indicate there's a problem fitting in. These are your assumptions, which are based on a complete fundamental failure to understand evolution. Human brains are our primary survival tool and sexual selection has shown that the less hairy / less animal like people were more likely to mate. We evolved around our intelligence, not physical toughness. We use nature to our benefit and to help us thrive. Humans can survive just fine without vaccines, but they have helped us. Apes get sick just like us. You keep ignoring everything that renders your theory as nonsensical.


Look, Barcs, I'm really excited for you. Imma let you finish. But von Däniken, Sitchin, and Pye are the greatest scientists of all time.


Classic!
edit on 11-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





I already said what I'm referring to. The process of evolution. It's proven. End of story.
And I agree, its just not listed to be found anywhere in humans. Do you have some links that specifically state its found in humans.




There is also documentation saying the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. That doesn't make it true.
True but without motive, its pretty hard to simply dismiss.




Is that supposed to be a joke? Look up evolution on wikipedia. Genetic mutation + natural selection = evolution. That's the definition of the word, but alas for some reason I have to repeat it constantly because you refuse to believe science.
So now your sayin that each and every single mutation is proof of evolution. Any links that state so.




First you have to find evidence that suggest this other thing exists. I admitted no such thing. Evolution is PROVEN in humans. It can be measured and tested. Stop being dishonest, I've said that a hundred times and once again you've provide no evidence whatsoever to suggest I'm wrong or that your theory is right.
Wait a minute, I though you stated that macroevolution can't be identified in humans. So are you saying that macroevolution is not part of evolution? How can you assume that it happens when its never been identified.




Lie much? I didn't say anything close to that.
Macro evolution has never been witnessed anywhere so there you go assuming. I would love to see any links that say speciation has been observed in humans.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





I'm not trying to debunk intervention. I'm defending the science behind evolution, which is strong. Intervention is an interesting theory but there's no reason it has to go against evolution. This is your fatal error. You make ancient alien theorists look bad as most of them don't go against modern science to force their conclusions. The meat and potatoes of intervention is about genetic manipulation.
Well here is the problem Barc, if we aren't from here, than we obviously didn't evolve from the other life around here. Thats not to say that evolution couldn't happen, but just that it didn't in this case. Or rather couldn't have in this case.

As for me, I think I'm going to accept reason to the some of the documentation in the bible, also to some of the things they are saying on anchient aliens,




The rest of your post is speculative nonsense and essentially just going back to the same argument from the beginning. Saying we don't fit in to our environment when we're the most successful species on the planet right now is a joke.
Ya its easy to get caught up in that angle of things, and its a tuff one to see around for sure. The fact is that we were probably even more successful than you could imagine on our planet. This planet has done nothing but hold us back for sure. There is no argument here that our redundant adaptation has saved our asses for sure. Evolutionists like to claim adaptation as part of evolution. It's such a joke and so wrong. Adaptation is an ability, like seeing or hearing, and there is no way that evolution could have pre seen us needing this ability and have given it to us as part of evolution.




You have no evidence whatsoever to suggest humans went backwards in evolution.
Well I'm being sarcastic right. What I'm trying to say is that things are so bad, we are going backwards. Try to understand this for a minute. Evolving means things changing. If we are evolving why are we doing all the adapting. Adapting is changing too but not on a molecular level like evolution. So anytime we have to adapt, its because evolution is failing us, in essence we are going backwards because things aren't working in the evolution order.




The only time creatures need to change is when the environment changes.
but are you overlooking the fact that anytime one needs to change is because they actually don't fit in to there enviroment. In other words the enviroment no longer fits them. Now its true that we are the most successful here but look at how much adapting we have to do to get there. In other words its not our enviroment. Your probably seeing for the first time now just how some things were meant to be here and some things weren't.




It doesn't go against natural selection, or indicate there's a problem fitting in. These are your assumptions, which are based on a complete fundamental failure to understand evolution. Human brains are our primary survival tool and sexual selection has shown that the less hairy / less animal like people were more likely to mate. We evolved around our intelligence, not physical toughness. We use nature to our benefit and to help us thrive. Humans can survive just fine without vaccines, but they have helped us. Apes get sick just like us. You keep ignoring everything that renders your theory as nonsensical.
Evolution might determine who fits in and who doesn't but in that process it pushes those out that don't fit in. I'm assuming that the idea here is to fit in, and make things work together. Maybe you have a different view on this.

When I look at life on this planet as a whole, what I see is an interaction with all life and speceis that makes them a small working piece of a very large puzzle. Of course humans don't fit in anywhere in this puzzle but thats besides the point. What I'm trying to say is that everything should be working together, but we see some things that don't and its either because of extinctions or because they don't belong here.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Maybe if I break some things down you will get a better understanding of whats really going on here. Do you or would you agree that its easier for things to work together rather than live in conflict? What I'm referring to is a planet where things would work together in many ways not just a food chain. Each planet MUST be created or evolve in a way where all of the inhabitants are a working cycle. This is so important that we have recognized extinctions as a very big deal on this planet. We are in our 6th epic extinction right now. When those happen it causes other things to collaps like in a domino effect. Here could lie the missing links that connect us to this planet but the problem is that we never knew of anything that ever lived closer to us that became extinct. The only other option here is if species were moved off of this planet by alien life. It's a possibility and we do have reason to belive that some of this has actually happend like with the myans.

Do you recall the argument I was having with Colin about sealed fish tanks? A sloppy balanced tank that is sealed and requires no food or maintenance just sunlight. It's a shotty attempt at a balance eco system but proves that this is the prevailing idea anywhere. Again the path of least resistance if the correct one, and I see where all planets are probably balanced eco systems or at least they are suppose to be. Earth has had some changes however which explains why we are not in a perfect balance. There have been many things that were brought to this planet, mostly for our needs, but in the process this also knocks off that balance. It's called transpermia. Anyhow the person that did this, was very wrong and did not understand the delicate balance (or he didn't care) he would be upsetting. So we are also part of upsetting that balance. Humans are not from here and I have proven this in a multituide of different ways. In addition to quizing people on this thread to challenge it and no one can come up with any alternatives to my questions. So its unanamouse, we are not from here. Here is a good one Barc, whats the purpose of life?

It sounds like a dumb question but when your looking at most other life here on earth you have no problem answering for them, but when it comes to humans, you can't answer.




Look, Barcs, I'm really excited for you. Imma let you finish. But von Däniken, Sitchin, and Pye are the greatest scientists of all time.


It looks like you have your work cut out for you. Is this a situation where your correct and all of these well known authors are wrong. I seriously doubt it.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
As a nice break

Global sociology

It is also becoming clear that mans activities in the rain forests of the Amazon in history had a very different impact to that of the greed driven actions today.

The dark earth found in many areas is now understood to be due to the hunter gatherer forest dwellers of the past and played a major part in the rain forest we see today.

It is clear that this so called 'pristine' environment is just a romantic imagination. The rain forest as it is today and before modern industry began to exploit it has been shaped by man for thousands of years and mans activities actually promote the diversity of plant and animal life we find there

WIKI

Some fool on here says man was never meant to be a hunter gatherer and that we have no natural food. He may not want to look at the information provided here but it is here none the less.


edit on 11-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
And I agree, its just not listed to be found anywhere in humans. Do you have some links that specifically state its found in humans.

Google human mutation rates. I'm not posting any sources for you as I already posted that a hundred pages back and was ignored, and you refuse to show me the same courtesy.



So now your sayin that each and every single mutation is proof of evolution. Any links that state so.

Um, use google. Check the wiki for evolution. Of course mutations are proof of evolution. What you're saying would be like if I said, "So now you're saying that each and every drop of water that falls from the sky is proof of rain? Any links that state so?" 1+1 = 2, man.



Wait a minute, I though you stated that macroevolution can't be identified in humans. So are you saying that macroevolution is not part of evolution? How can you assume that it happens when its never been identified.

I already explained macro vs micro evolution. They are not different, and both rely on genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Why do you purposely ignore everything I say? I didn't say ANYTHING about ANYTHING being identified. I said a human cannot observe speciation in his own species. Funny how quick you twist my words around to something as ridiculous as that.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Google human mutation rates. I'm not posting any sources for you as I already posted that a hundred pages back and was ignored, and you refuse to show me the same courtesy.
Ok done, just like last time, but how does this prove evolution.




Um, use google. Check the wiki for evolution. Of course mutations are proof of evolution. What you're saying would be like if I said, "So now you're saying that each and every drop of water that falls from the sky is proof of rain? Any links that state so?" 1+1 = 2, man.
Thats not true at all, there is no way to verify that it is evolution causing it.




Originally posted by itsthetooth
And I agree, its just not listed to be found anywhere in humans. Do you have some links that specifically state its found in humans.

Google human mutation rates. I'm not posting any sources for you as I already posted that a hundred pages back and was ignored, and you refuse to show me the same courtesy.



So now your sayin that each and every single mutation is proof of evolution. Any links that state so.

Um, use google. Check the wiki for evolution. Of course mutations are proof of evolution. What you're saying would be like if I said, "So now you're saying that each and every drop of water that falls from the sky is proof of rain? Any links that state so?" 1+1 = 2, man.



Wait a minute, I though you stated that macroevolution can't be identified in humans. So are you saying that macroevolution is not part of evolution? How can you assume that it happens when its never been identified.

I already explained macro vs micro evolution. They are not different, and both rely on genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Why do you purposely ignore everything I say? I didn't say ANYTHING about ANYTHING being identified. I said a human cannot observe speciation in his own species. Funny how quick you twist my words around to something as ridiculous as that.
Then we should be able to verify them through fossils and we can't so now what.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Google human mutation rates. I'm not posting any sources for you as I already posted that a hundred pages back and was ignored, and you refuse to show me the same courtesy.

Are you really asking a person who has shown complete lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills to look up scientific information on the internet, discern a credible source from one that's not, read past the first paragraph even though he admits that he gets bored when he has to read for too long so he likes teh yootoob videuhs instead, and then process that information via something approaching rational thought? May you be guided by the genius (not genus) of A Fish Called Wanda:


Otto: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. I've known sheep that could outwit you, but you think you're an intellectual don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.

Godspeed, good Barcs. Godspeed.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Google human mutation rates. I'm not posting any sources for you as I already posted that a hundred pages back and was ignored, and you refuse to show me the same courtesy.

Are you really asking a person who has shown complete lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills to look up scientific information on the internet, discern a credible source from one that's not, read past the first paragraph even though he admits that he gets bored when he has to read for too long so he likes teh yootoob videuhs instead, and then process that information via something approaching rational thought? May you be guided by the genius (not genus) of A Fish Called Wanda:


Otto: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. I've known sheep that could outwit you, but you think you're an intellectual don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.

It's amazing how much someone can stretch an opinion.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Google human mutation rates. I'm not posting any sources for you as I already posted that a hundred pages back and was ignored, and you refuse to show me the same courtesy.

Are you really asking a person who has shown complete lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills to look up scientific information on the internet, discern a credible source from one that's not, read past the first paragraph even though he admits that he gets bored when he has to read for too long so he likes teh yootoob videuhs instead, and then process that information via something approaching rational thought? May you be guided by the genius (not genus) of A Fish Called Wanda:


Otto: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. I've known sheep that could outwit you, but you think you're an intellectual don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.

It's amazing how much someone can stretch an opinion.
It is more amazing how you have stretched a delusion supported by lies. Even more amazing is that you think no one has noticed even though we keep telling and showing you we have.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I don't think evolution is the problem, it's Darwin's Theory of Evolution that people have contention with.Evolution means change and we all know that changes take place, there are just some that don't believe it happens to the extent that Darwin claimed way back then. He even took issue with it himself before he died.
Theories aren't facts, their just possibilities and they stand until a better possibility is thought of.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 
150 years have past since then. The motor car has been invented, flight, computers. Huge advancements in all aspects of medicine and science.

So why is anything that Darwin wrote a problem. A stretch I know but we dont go on about how H G Wells was wrong about how we would fly to the moon.

Stop digging up Darwin and read what modern day evolution describes. Just as doctors no longer use leeches things have changed a little since then.


edit on 12-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 
150 years have past since then. The motor car has been invented, flight, computers. Huge advancements in all aspects of medicine and science.

So why is anything that Darwin wrote a problem. A stretch I know but we dont go on about how H G Wells was wrong about how we would fly to the moon.

Stop digging up Darwin and read what modern day evolution describes. Just as doctors no longer use leeches things have changed a little since then.


edit on 12-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

You may want to go back and read what I wrote again. You've taken it completely out of context and twisted it due to your own bias and desires instead of what was stated.
I very clearly said that evolution means change and we can all agree that change happens.
The contention is with Darwin's theory of evolution and it was SO BIG at the time that every single fundamentalist evangelical out there automatically divert back to Darwin when they hear the word "evolution". THAT is where the problem is. They aren't going to accept ANY theory with "evolution" in the name of it because they automatically focus on Darwin's theory and discount it completely instead of learning about what it's saying.
Just as I have to overcome your bias right now to get you to see what I'm saying, anyone discussing evolution has to overcome their bias before they're going to be able to get them to see any of it.

I consider myself Christian, but I am in NO WAY a fundamentalist evangelical who relies on "magic" for all their answers. Evolution and creationism can go hand in hand, but neither extreme would be willing to admit it or even pause for a moment to think about it.
edit on 12-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 379  380  381    383  384  385 >>

log in

join