Getting to the Bottom of Evolution

page: 12
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Evolution no longer remains a THEORY. It is fact. The Human Genome Project was concluded and this mapping was compared and is still being compared the the massive amount of Genome Mapping of other organisms it was determined that ALL LIFE...Plant, Animal, Microscopic Organisms...etc...ALL had the same Viral Infection encoding within their DNA.

This is 100% PROOF that all Life originated and EVOLVED from a SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM. A VIRUS is NOT ALIVE. The Men who won the Nobel Prize for their work in Virology won in the Nobel category of CHEMISTRY as a Virus does have DNA but is not living.

END OF ISSUE! Split Infinity

Nobel Prize?! You’re having a laugh mate!

Obama won the Peace Prize, Kissinger and the EU did as well. That is one big frigging joke, no 3 big frigging jokes and counting.

Prove to me that all Life originated and EVOLVED from a SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM.

You blokes talk big and shout a lot and doctor evidence a lot, but at the end of the day you have NOTHING!!!!

I am not a Creatiomist. They can go too Hades along with Darwinists.




posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Which are the "non important things" to you -- your own words or the facts that contradict your interventionist hypothesis?
Just because you know some facts that I don't care about, doesn't prove intervention to be wrong, especially when those facts have nothing to do with proving intervention wrong.




Yes, the Bible teaches that we live in a geocentric universe i.e. that the Earth is at the center, surrounded by the firmament. The Ptolemaic system, which is what you linked to, added the concept of a spherical Earth (in contradiction to the flat Earth claimed by the Bible) but preserved the concept that the Earth was the center of the universe.


So what you have proven at this point by your claims, is that the bible was not written by good scientists. But like I keep trying to tell you, supernatural elements are not bound to the restrictions of science. Are you sure your understanding the differnce between the supernatural and science, as we seem to keep revisiting this?




You need better reading comprehension skills. I never claimed or implied that the Bible mentioned other planets, just that it claimed a flat Earth, geocentric model of the universe.
That would be my mistake, because I assumed a universe should include other planets.




You're the one that claimed that the Bible included the "astronimacal line up of our planets”. Are you now claiming that the Bible does not include the “astronimacal line up of our planets”?
Neither, what I'm claiming is that your claim of it being hellinistic over being geocentric led me to look at some information about geocentric, which offered a line up of the planets.




But that’s not what you claimed. What you claimed was “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”.
All the ones I have researched are.




I have provided four examples of places mentioned in the Bible that are not “real places still today” and your lame excuse for why they have never been found is “I'm not familliar with them”. Either “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today
I think your confusing the fact that your not able to locate them, with them not being in existence. Just because a location can't be located doesn't mean it's no longer there. As an example, when a bomb blew up hiroshima, it was still there in the aftermath. Now you probably wouldn't be able to identify it as hiroshima but the location is still there.




or they are not. Can you explain where these four locations are, keeping in mind that none of these were “bombed” in the Bible, or are you admitting that not “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”?
All I'm admitting is that your just not able to find them.




You claimed that “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”. I presented four that have never been found. Do you know where they are? Remember, you made the positive claim. It's up to you to provide evidence that “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”. Are you now claiming that not “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”?
Repost the four, and I will probably have better luck in finding them.




But your claim wasn't just that there's a calendar in existence based on the supposed birth of Jesus Christ, but also that “people back in that time” started using BC/AD immediately after the supposed birth of Jesus Christ.
You might want to check that, I dont believe I used the word immediately.




Every calendar system in existence is based on something: the Jewish calendar, where we are in year 5773 and the new year falls in September, is based on the claimed date of the creation of the Earth; the Islamic calendar, where we are in year 1434 and the new year falls in November, is based on the Hijra from Mecca to Medina; the Chinese calendar, where we are in year 4709 and the new year falls in late January, is based on the reign of Emperor Huang-Di; the Indian calendar, where we are in year 5114 and the new year depends on which Indian state you happen to be in, is based on when Krishna returned to his eternal abode. All of these systems, and the dozens of others that exist, "still manage to keep track based on that event" -- whatever event they chose to start their calendar.
And out of all of these which is the one most commonly known and used?




From what you can tell, DNA has a "blue laminate".
Ya and what makes it even more confusing is when others have collaborated on it.




Why? Because controlling people’s perception of the afterlife, regardless of whether it is real or not, is a powerful to



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Why? Because controlling people’s perception of the afterlife, regardless of whether it is real or not, is a powerful tool for controlling people themselves. Or are you claiming that the afterlife isn't explicitly mentioned in the Bible?
I have searched for areas to see if the afterlife is mentioned, and never found any. Can you give some locations.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Macdon
 





Prove to me that all Life originated and EVOLVED from a SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM.


We can actually watch evolution from single-celled forms to multi-celled forms happening.
Linky

Please feel free to Google before posting



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Just because you know some facts that I don't care about, doesn't prove intervention to be wrong, especially when those facts have nothing to do with proving intervention wrong.

So the facts that I've presented that shed light on how the Bible isn't an accurate source of "documentation" has nothing to do with your interventionist hypothesis which relies heavily on you claiming the Bible is accurate source of "documentation" of events?


So what you have proven at this point by your claims, is that the bible was not written by good scientists. But like I keep trying to tell you, supernatural elements are not bound to the restrictions of science. Are you sure your understanding the differnce between the supernatural and science, as we seem to keep revisiting this?

So then the Bible, by your own admission, cannot be used as objective "documentation" or evidence of any of the events that you claim it can be.


Neither, what I'm claiming is that your claim of it being hellinistic over being geocentric led me to look at some information about geocentric, which offered a line up of the planets.

No, I claimed that the Bible was geocentric, not heliocentric. You still can't even get that part right.


All the ones I have researched are.

But that's still not what you claimed. You made the positive claim that “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”. I have provided four locations which aren't “real places still today”, if they ever even existed in the first place. Do you know the modern locations of these four places? If you do not, then how can you continue to claim that “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”?


All I'm admitting is that your just not able to find them.

So then not “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”.


You might want to check that, I dont believe I used the word immediately.

Then what were you referring to when you said "people back in that time"?


And out of all of these which is the one most commonly known and used?

Which still has nothing to do with whether or not it was a real event. The Gregorian calendar isn't the first calendar that was in common usage, it will not be the last.


Ya and what makes it even more confusing is when others have collaborated on it.

You mean collaborated on that "blue laminate" that you were never able to provide any evidence of or reference to, which you then admitted that you were wrong about? How did others collaborate on a fictional concept that exists only in your own mind?


I have searched for areas to see if the afterlife is mentioned, and never found any. Can you give some locations.

Sheol is mentioned throughout the Old Testament, Gehenna is mentioned throughout the New Testament. If you haven't seen these references, then you must not have actually read the Bible.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





So the facts that I've presented that shed light on how the Bible isn't an accurate source of "documentation" has nothing to do with your interventionist hypothesis which relies heavily on you claiming the Bible is accurate source of "documentation" of events?
There is a difference between the bible being scientifically accurate and historically accurate.




So then the Bible, by your own admission, cannot be used as objective "documentation" or evidence of any of the events that you claim it can be.
I think it can, you have brought many things to light that will remain in question but haven't proven anything to be wrong. Even if the bible makes claims that represent a geocentric view, you are making an assumption that we know better at this time. None of which is a fact or proven.

Besides, you never answered my question, did the bible tell you it believes in a geocentric line up, or did it explain that all planets rotate around earth. Because if it did, then I was right, it was explaining an astronimical understanding.




But that's still not what you claimed. You made the positive claim that “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”. I have provided four locations which aren't “real places still today”, if they ever even existed in the first place. Do you know the modern locations of these four places? If you do not, then how can you continue to claim that “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”?
I would believe more that you either didn't research very well, or gave up easily with half hearted attempts. I found this site that basically tells you where each city is, and with pin point accuracy. If they had wanted to, it looks like they could have also of given Longituide and Latituide as well. I was only able to find a couple that it looks like they were unsure of, but then I didn't look at each and every one of them.
As I asked before, it would help if you reposted those citys you weren't able to find, as you may find them here.
Places of the bible




So then not “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”.
If nine out of ten are found, I'm happy to say they are all real. If I miss place my keys it doesn't mean they aren't real. There are way to many citys known.




Then what were you referring to when you said "people back in that time"?
You assumed that meant BC/ AD period and its just a general statement.




Which still has nothing to do with whether or not it was a real event. The Gregorian calendar isn't the first calendar that was in common usage, it will not be the last.
You can argue that basis all you want, but the fact of the matter is, we use the AD time line as a reference to keep track, and the majority of the planet still to this day abides by the ten commandments.
ten commandments




You mean collaborated on that "blue laminate" that you were never able to provide any evidence of or reference to, which you then admitted that you were wrong about? How did others collaborate on a fictional concept that exists only in your own mind?
I never admitted that the blue laminate was falsly collaborated, you must be suffering from selective amnesia. Your welcome to call the Mission in Spokane WA and ask them if they ever held chappel about blue laminate. I was there.




Sheol is mentioned throughout the Old Testament, Gehenna is mentioned throughout the New Testament. If you haven't seen these references, then you must not have actually read the Bible.
Not in its entirety, no.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I am honestly perplexed at the fact that highly regarded scientists really believe in evolution in gerenal or even the big bang theory. I refuted evolution long ago, and after taking 2 anatomy & microbiology classes recently I believe even more so that we are created by one creator. Even I can see the writing on the wall as how we all came together, but to think it all happened by chance is so obsured to me. Its ridicuously impossible. I mean didnt we debunk the whole "spontaneous generation" centuries ago?



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by littleewok
 





I am honestly perplexed at the fact that highly regarded scientists really believe in evolution in gerenal or even the big bang theory. I refuted evolution long ago, and after taking 2 anatomy & microbiology classes recently I believe even more so that we are created by one creator. Even I can see the writing on the wall as how we all came together, but to think it all happened by chance is so obsured to me. Its ridicuously impossible. I mean didnt we debunk the whole "spontaneous generation" centuries ago?
I just watched some special on netflix, where this guy used to totally believe in evolution had switched to creationism because evolution has to many holes in it.

Evolution is just a belief that was made up to overwrite religion, specifically for those that don't, or don't want to believe in religion. Trust me, anything that is responsible for creating over a billion species is a creator, regardless of its name or intent.

I think the problem here stems from the understanding of the changes in evolution. It's assumed that evolution has this random, unpredictable out come, but no one has been able to identify whats causing the changes, so an assumption is made that it must be evolution. What a poor lack of science persona. Talk about making science look bad. Everyone knows that the only way they are ever going to get to the bottom of this, is to first determine whats causing those changes.

We are actually at the early stages of this actually happening. As an example it was recently figured out that people that have ADHD, have a very strong chance of having CNV's thats copy number variants. What they found out was that these people have some sections of their DNA that appear to be multiplied and others that appear to be deleted. Now prior to them finding ADHD behind all of this, they would have looked at those changes as though they were evoution. It's just a matter of time until we become more familliar with the whole genome and are able to identify all changes to our DNA.

I saw the coolest comic about ADHD yesterday, it shows a group of people raising their hands, and saying... What do we want/// A cure for ADHD // When do we want it? // Squirrel!

Anyhow, I believe that all changes could be accounted for if they could first learn how to identify them all. They would see that there actually is no random changes, but in fact that all changes happen for a very good, and very well known reason, rather than saying, oh it must be evolution. It's honeslty the weakest excuse for a theory I have ever heard of.

No one has ever witnessed or proven that we are all related, and what we do share in simularity with respect to DNA could easily be from a creator. It's almost like evolutonists are claiming that airplanes and bicycles must be related because they both move and have wheels. It's the same idea anyhow.

Lloyd Pye believes that we were an engineered species, and sad to say but there is a lot pointing in that same direction. His basis for this is how our DNA has over 4000 defects which by comparison to other life is cruelty. I see that it's possible this is how god punished us, genocide. Pye claims that sloppy genetic work has left us with this high amount of defects. Evolutionists here on ATS try to convince me that this is another doing by evolution. The problem is that some of the changes to our DNA can only be explained through lab work. There are six sections that were removed, inverted, and reinserted and there is a section that is fused, all of which are explained to be lab techniques.

We know we didn't do it. One article I read claims that aliens must have done this to us. I'm agreeing with that as well.

human genetics



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by littleewok
I am honestly perplexed at the fact that highly regarded scientists really believe in evolution in gerenal or even the big bang theory. I refuted evolution long ago, and after taking 2 anatomy & microbiology classes recently I believe even more so that we are created by one creator. Even I can see the writing on the wall as how we all came together, but to think it all happened by chance is so obsured to me. Its ridicuously impossible. I mean didnt we debunk the whole "spontaneous generation" centuries ago?


Who said evolution is spontaneous? That is creation.
While high school biology classes are not the proper place to get into the nuances of modern conceptions of abiogenesis, it would still be misleading to present the above post as if it were something.
Further reading is required. Link


A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design, but there is another more insidious mistake here. It is not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disproven were more restricted than that. Hence this essay. We will look at the history of the idea, and then the disproofs, and finally the relation of the origin of life to evolutionary theory in general. As always, we start with the Greeks. Once we reach Pasteur, the implications of the debate to that point for evolution will be considered. Then we will look at the modern - post-Pasteur and post-Darwin - developments in Origins of Life research.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Hey fella,I've read everyt post and repy in this thread and i have utter respect and admiration for you.

You've fought you're corner tooth and nail against all comers with real determination yet it's such a shame !!

I admire you for the fight you've put up but your position is so inherently flawed that it"s just pure nonsense.

Either you're living proof that a little knowledge is dangerous or you're desire to believe is blinding you to what you're reading.

If you've genuinelly arrived at your conclusions through objective research as you claim then I suggest you take up knitting or something as you haven't got the faculties for critical thinking ;-(


Target foods for example,you could look at the way animals eat and develop a complex theory to describe it,encompassing intelligent design and direction which determined that each planet has the exact requirements to meet the needs of each species.Until god,martians,greys maybe decided to gather them all from their home planets and dumped them on Earth.

No reason for or evidence of this act to show by whom or to what end but you know it's imaginative i'll give you that.

Of course,you could look at animal feeding habits and suggest that species will favour foods most suited to their nutritional needs,dietry system and metabolism.

They'll favour what most easily available to them and abundant in their enviroment.

This isn't chosen for them,no outside intelligence is directing them rather it's it's part learnt behaviour,part instinctive that's all.

You don't need any complex theory to explain that an animal will feed from the most suitable,accesible food in it's enviroment.If that goes it'll find the next most suitable and easy söurce.

If that's threatened they'll adapt if they can which can lead to specilising.

An example,my mother feeds the birds wi hanging up peanuts in bags,bits of lard on string,breadcrumbs etc.

In winter they'll take advantage but in accordance with the law of target foods why arent they eating worms like they've been directed in good weather yet they eat the food she leaves out just as much in summer.Don't tell me sparrows,robins,finchs,blackbirds etc target food is breadcrumbs and lardcakes.

How do urban foxes feeding from rubbish bins or that seagulls are more common in towns and citys than on the coasts now fit in with target foods ?

The answer is simple it doesnt because it's nonsense.Open your eyes and use some commön sense.Animals always have,always will exploit and adapt to any ready available source of food and that's instinct and need driving that plain and simple.

If target foods was real seagulls wouldnt thrive ön our waste food they'd be eating fish as programmed yet seagulls are as plentiful as rats in every city.

Parading target foods,pure psuedo science of the worst kind,as a major part of the case agaisnt evolution is a joke,along with the bible and the starchild.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Okay, never said it was spontaneous, but then again where did the apes come from in this evolution theory? Formed by themself, out of thin air? Just curious.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by littleewok
I am honestly perplexed at the fact that highly regarded scientists really believe in evolution in gerenal or even the big bang theory. I refuted evolution long ago, and after taking 2 anatomy & microbiology classes recently I believe even more so that we are created by one creator. Even I can see the writing on the wall as how we all came together, but to think it all happened by chance is so obsured to me. Its ridicuously impossible. I mean didnt we debunk the whole "spontaneous generation" centuries ago?


Oo, taking an A&P class and a class in micro makes you an expert? Really?

Did you even bother to peer under that microscope, or did your lab partner do all the work for you?


"Even I can see the writing on the wall as how we all came together, but to think it all happened by chance is so obsured to me. Its ridicuously impossible."


Methinks you should add Probability and Statistics 101 to your courseload. Then you'll see how it happened by chance. Get rid of the religion and mythology classes and take Logic instead.

Oh, and no one uses the term "spontaneous generation" and haven't in 300 years. The proper term is "modern synthesis." Please go look it up. Or didn't you discuss that in high school Biology 101?
edit on 12/10/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by littleewok
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Okay, never said it was spontaneous, but then again where did the apes come from in this evolution theory? Formed by themself, out of thin air? Just curious.


You had no business in a biology class of any kind at the university level if you don't understand basic evolutionary theory. Your post shows clearly that you do not.

Damn, what are they teaching kids in school these days? My 16 year old knows more than you do.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by littleewok
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Okay, never said it was spontaneous, but then again where did the apes come from in this evolution theory? Formed by themself, out of thin air? Just curious.


You must learn to crawl before you can walk.

Start with the basics here before moving into primate evolution.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Woah, calm down there, don't get your briefs in a bunch now.
First off, Spontaneous Generation was in the 1st chapter of my COLLEGE Microbiology book this semester. And yes they still talk about it.(they call this learning, if you didn't know) Of course I'm not an expert, but you must be? um yeah, I didn't think so. My point was this....I heard theories of evolution in the past and they just are not convincing whatsoever. Why? BECAUSE THERE'S NO PROOF!! It's a bunch of gibberish. Too many missing links, even evolutionists with PH. D's can tell ya that. By taking Microbiology, Anatomy & Physiology 101 and 102, (which I have A's in, thank you very much, oh and yeah I don't cheat, but maybe you did in school, hmmm?)it gave me clearer vision of how evolution could never be and never was. The human body and all of it's inter workings could never be evolved into this masterpiece we call the human body. There is definitely an intelligent mind behind it. There is absolutely no question in my mind. I just look at the proof, it's really simple to see it. You just have to lift the veil over your eyes.

Maybe you should do a little reading from a different site....

www.icr.org...


Peace Out



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by littleewok
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Woah, calm down there, don't get your briefs in a bunch now.
First off, Spontaneous Generation was in the 1st chapter of my COLLEGE Microbiology book this semester.


Well, then, our education system is going to hell in a handbasket. They might mention it--as part of the history of evolutionary theory, but no one uses that term anymore.


And yes they still talk about it.(they call this learning, if you didn't know) Of course I'm not an expert, but you must be? um yeah, I didn't think so.


LOL If you say so. It's been part and parcel of my professional existence since before you were born.


My point was this....I heard theories of evolution in the past and they just are not convincing whatsoever. Why? BECAUSE THERE'S NO PROOF!! It's a bunch of gibberish.


There is plenty of proof.

Listen to me very carefully. I want you to go look up Richard Lenski and his long-term E. coli experiment.

Keep in mind, too, that our entire medical and pharmaceutical industries are based on evolution. If evolution were false, you wouldn't have lovely drugs and medicines.


Too many missing links, even evolutionists with PH. D's can tell ya that.


There's no such thing as a missing link. There are transitional species--every species alive today is a transitional species between what came before and what will come after. It's not that difficult of a concept.


By taking Microbiology, Anatomy & Physiology 101 and 102, (which I have A's in, thank you very much,


Well, whoopdeedoo! Congratulations. What do you want, a medal?


oh and yeah I don't cheat, but maybe you did in school, hmmm?)it gave me clearer vision of how evolution could never be and never was.The human body and all of it's inter workings could never be evolved into this masterpiece we call the human body.


It can and did. As I said, learn probability theory.


There is definitely an intelligent mind behind it. There is absolutely no question in my mind. I just look at the proof, it's really simple to see it. You just have to lift the veil over your eyes.


See, this is where Logic and critical thinking comes into play. What you just wrote is a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy. Even if you could prove evolution false (which you can't), it doesn't automatically make creationism true.

And all you'd have to do to prove evolution false is to find a mammal fossil dated to the Precambrian. That would be enough to bring down the whole house of cards.

Can't do that? No?

What a surprise.

If I seem a bit harsh, well, it's because I'm appalled at the lack of science education displayed here. You cannot function in the 21st century believing in creationism. You simply can't. You're putting yourself and your children at a competitive disadvantage.
edit on 12/10/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


GIBBERISH! you are talking and saying nothing!!!! e coli? really? gimme a break. Is this what you do all day, cut people down? wow you crack me up.......I don't have time for you......I have finals.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by littleewok
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


GIBBERISH! you are talking and saying nothing!!!! e coli? really? gimme a break. Is this what you do all day, cut people down? wow you crack me up.......I don't have time for you......I have finals.


Yes. E. coli. Really. Although I fail to see why that shouldn't carry any weight. What's wrong with using E. coli? What do you want us to use, people? There's a very good reason they used that particular microbe: because it replicates in 9 minutes and so genetic changes over the generations are easier to see, tag, and track.

If you think it's gibberish, it's only because you don't understand. I doubt you even read the whole post.

Good luck on your finals. If you display the lack of knowledge and understanding in your subjects that you display here, I have no doubt you'll fail spectacularly. Although it's pretty easy to get an A when you BS your way through it.
edit on 12/10/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


I do understand ur problem is u dont like the fact that i see nothing to it. So all u do is bash my intelligence and then blame it on education. ...very childish. All that u have said still doesnt say anything about how we r standing upright now......if there is evolution where is it, fossils dont tell us that, i dont see half human half ape walking around....where in history can this be seen? Mutations r what they r, it still doesnt prove anything....evolutionists have been on the hunt for proof for years...u still dont have any but yet u try so hard. Like a dog who chases his tail, he'll never get it. Enough said.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by littleewok
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


I do understand ur problem is u dont like the fact that i see nothing to it. So all u do is bash my intelligence and then blame it on education. ...very childish.


I'm not bashing your intelligence. I'm questioning your critical thinking and logic skills, and how you think taking a class or two in school with no relevant experience makes you qualified to decide who's right or wrong.


All that u have said still doesnt say anything about how we r standing upright now......if there is evolution where is it, fossils dont tell us that, i dont see half human half ape walking around....where in history can this be seen?


You've just shown beyond doubt that you have zero understanding of either anatomy or physiology, let alone evolutionary theory.

Tell me, if God created us, wouldn't he have made it so that 80% of the population didn't have back problems partially due to the strain of walking upright? Or arthritis or other degenerative joint diseases? Wouldn't he have made it so that human women have an easier time in childbirth compared to our primate relatives? (And don't you dare spout any nonsense about how the pain of childbirth is atonement for our sins.)


Mutations r what they r, it still doesnt prove anything....evolutionists have been on the hunt for proof for years...u still dont have any but yet u try so hard. Like a dog who chases his tail, he'll never get it. Enough said.


Seriously, when you're in a hole, it's generally a good idea to stop digging.
edit on 12/10/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join