I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

reply to post by helius


See the post above your last one??

rickymouse

Xtrozero

rickymouse
I believe in Evolution but not as it is taught. I believe something is steering it just like we have steered bacteria and other microbes to evolve faster. Something evolved humans, it wasn't random evolution. Something steered us down the path we are going.

So then, I think that the two theories, evolution and creationism need to be combined.

Why? Do you think you are special? Does the cheetah think it is special because it is fast? You know the cheetah must have been steered...hmmm isn't that natural selection?

Natural selection does not really allow for compassion or friendship. These are very important to all animals. I see that the does in my yard do not allow the young fawns to eat the food we give them. My wife would get mad because she said the mother was greedy. I would observe them all the time. The does were teaching the fawn to survive, eating stuff in the wild. Once it learned all it's survival skills the does would leave the young start eating the foods we were giving. When I told the wife, she looked at me a little crazy.....She told me a month later I was right after many observations of her own. To believe in natural selection means you have to believe these animals are just dumb animals. These dear have compassion and feel sorrow and remorse. Sure, the young bucks full of testosterone are like human teenagers, teens can't think well because of a rapid change in hormone levels. That is not just a human trait.

If you do not look for these traits in animals you will not see them. They appear to be dumb animals around people who treat them as meat. They have feelings just like all of us do.

Now, I know I need to eat meat so I buy my half a cow from a farmer who treats his cows well, they are grassfed cows with plenty of food. They are not mistreated while they are alive. They live to about two years old, but at least it was a decent two years. When I eat my roast I think about the cow that gave her/his life so I may live.

These feelings do not fit into natural selection at all. A fireman who rushes into a burning building to save someone....definitely not natural selection. How about the story of Moby dick the whale, study the true story on that.

If you want to believe in natural selection go ahead, that is your right. I see flaws that make the theory of evolution nothing but a deception equal to the theory of creation.

Why does natural selection not allow for altruism or learned behaviour?

helldiver

ServantOfTheLamb

SuperFrog
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Lot of research prove it to be true, so there is no reason for belief.

Also lots of research proves that world is a bit older then what is suggested by Bible.

Your wishful thinking does not make it true... something you should learn in school...

If there is so much of it then give me just one example of a change in kinds....The Bible doesn't say the earth is 6000-10000 years old, and I don't believe it is so do just assume things your wishful thinking doesn't make it true

How about this?:

www.talkorigins.org...

Well I was immediately disappointed when I went to the link because I see observed "more observerd speciation event." This is a common mistake with most people who accept macro-evolution as fact. What you just posted was observable evidence for micro-evolution(which is closer to genetic adaptations imo). Here is why.

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

What is a species?

A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

All you are showing me are fish turning into a fish. Mouse turning into mouse. Goatsbeard turning into goatsbeard. None of these are examples of a transition between kinds, or Macro-evolution. Say a mouse into a rabbit or something of the sort.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


I'd bet you were disappointed.

Speciation is the evolutionary formation of new species which is exactly what is described in the link.

Micro and macro evolution are essentially the same thing.

helldiver
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I'd bet you were disappointed.

Speciation is the evolutionary formation of new species which is exactly what is described in the link.

Micro and macro evolution are essentially the same thing.

Oh joy... here comes the macro-evolution is micro-evolution over a large time-scale thing...Nope sorry no observable testable evidence for this. If you believe that you are taking that on faith.

reply to post by helldiver


Yes thank Helldiver. It is eventually an old common claim when one discusses the theory of evolution. As long as someone can’t show to a being that’s in a middle of a transition stage (caused by evolution), the evolution theory is just a theory just like all the others.

Some people claims that the creation theory (by a God) needed faith to believe in, and that the evolution theory was proved simply by taking a look around you, and thus didn’t need faith to believe in. I just think this is a bit easy. As long as there are not even a fragment of evidence that supports the evolution theory, the theory has got no greater credibility than the other creation theories, and thus faith is also needed (in large doses) in order to believe in the evolution theory.

It’s the different agenda’s that this and other theories are poisoned with that makes further investigation of our past so difficult, because the Evolution theory has clearly a political agenda, and the Christian creation story has a religious agenda. The AA-theory has not got any such agenda’s , and that’s the beauty of this theory, because thus it’s possible to discuss all sides of it without pulling in religion or political correct mainstream politics to kill the discussion.

Off all these three theories , the evolution theory is the only theory that is not backed up by anything at all. The two other theories are at least backed up by a multitude of ancient writings. Despite of this fact, the theory that is the least probable (the evolution theory) is nevertheless still the theory that is the official one. People should ask themselves why it is so.

helius
reply to post by helldiver

 

Yes thank Helldiver. It is eventually an old common claim when one discusses the theory of evolution. As long as someone can’t show to a being that’s in a middle of a transition stage (caused by evolution), the evolution theory is just a theory just like all the others.

Some people claims that the creation theory (by a God) needed faith to believe in, and that the evolution theory was proved simply by taking a look around you, and thus didn’t need faith to believe in. I just think this is a bit easy. As long as there are not even a fragment of evidence that supports the evolution theory, the theory has got no greater credibility than the other creation theories, and thus faith is also needed (in large doses) in order to believe in the evolution theory.

It’s the different agenda’s that this and other theories are poisoned with that makes further investigation of our past so difficult, because the Evolution theory has clearly a political agenda, and the Christian creation story has a religious agenda. The AA-theory has not got any such agenda’s , and that’s the beauty of this theory, because thus it’s possible to discuss all sides of it without pulling in religion or political correct mainstream politics to kill the discussion.

Off all these three theories , the evolution theory is the only theory that is not backed up by anything at all. The two other theories are at least backed up by a multitude of ancient writings. Despite of this fact, the theory that is the least probable (the evolution theory) is nevertheless still the theory that is the official one. People should ask themselves why it is so.

I don't know a whole lot about the AA theory, however I have heard that Ancient Aliens could have been Nephlim. Many Biblical Scholars also believe that Nephlim will exist in the end times, and that aliens could be the disguise that they use.

Mudskipper

Mudskippers are members of the subfamily Oxudercinae (tribe Periophthalmini), within the family Gobiidae (Gobies). They are completely amphibious fish, fish that can use their pectoral fins to walk on land. Being amphibious, they are uniquely adapted to intertidal habitats, unlike most fish in such habitats which survive the retreat of the tide by hiding under wet seaweed or in tidal pools. Mudskippers are quite active when out of water, feeding and interacting with one another, for example to defend their territories. They are found in tropical, subtropical and temperate regions, including the Indo-Pacific and the Atlantic coast of Africa.

What?
A Fish that can walk around on land, breathe air and is even quite active while out of water in interactions with others of its kind, and even feeding out of water?

What a fun and cliche' example championing Evolution in demonstrating a transitional state from one 'kind' to another that survives into modern times.

Of course creationists typically won't accept the fossil record detailing the Cetacean evolution/migration from land back into the sea. Nor do creationists typically accept Pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, walrus) as examples of a "transitional" state.

Fact of the matter is, there's really no such thing as "transitional" except in hindsight.
An evolutionary adaptation is an advantageous adaptation for the niche habitat, ecosystem, and conditions any species currently occupies and exploits for resources.
We could by all means say that dinosaurs were a "transitional" state into becoming chicken sammiches, or breakfast eggs.

A little more seriously, if someone wants to get into philosophical bickering about "transitional" states, WE, Humans, are in a "transitional" state from our current Homo Sapiens Sapiens to, whatever we eventually adapt into some hundreds of thousands of years from now left alone without self guided direction, and/or what new species we actually decide to become through self directed evolution via future advancements in engineered hereditary self modifications.
That's getting off topic into fun transhumanism though.

Anyway; Mudskipper.

Evolution, however, doesn't need you to believe in it for it to occur.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

I have to admit, if there was ever an animal that looked like it evolved, it’s the Mudskipper. This animal is both an amphibian and a fish. It can breathe under water and on land. Surprisingly, there are several other animals that are able to do this as well (Lungfish, Wooly Sculpin, etc). Despite these facts, the evidence still says that the Mudskipper is created, not evolved. Regardless of what textbooks and bias teachers say, evolution is unproven. There has never, ever been a transitional fossil found. In other words, there has never been a single bone found that shows an animal transitioning, or evolving, into a different animal. There have been many claims about such fossils, but not a single one has ever proven to be real. If evolution takes millions of years and we are still evolving, then we should find half evolved animals everywhere. Evolution is simply not happening in the world around us.

Now if you can show me another fish evolve into a mudskipper that would be something.

The anatomy and deployment of these fins gives them the much-needed strength, flexibility, control and range of movement for the mudskipper’s mudflat lifestyle. Slow and gradual evolutionary modification of these crucial organs of movement would require many information-adding mutations to occur in just the right places at just the right times—mutations to alter the musculo-skeletal system, the wiring of the nerves and, most importantly, the embryological development of the fins. Instead, extensive research into these kinds of complex specified genetic changes provides no evidence that they can occur, let alone in such coordinated coincidences as would be required.10 Also, each such mutation needs to provide a distinct advantage to the fish in order to be ‘locked in’ by natural selection. The likelihood of all this is vanishingly small.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

Mudskippers really are marvels of the mangrove swamps and mudflats. Whether we focus on their special eyes, take in their unique breathing or ponder their amusing fin-walking, these fish seem to have an ideal blend of characteristics for creatures that are at home in water and on land. Their various ‘departures’ from normal fish anatomy show an economy of design, with the complex parts of each body system all clearly specified (by instructions in the DNA) and finely tuned. Mudskippers are certainly no reason for creationists to have bad dreams! Those who choose to believe otherwise would appear to be willingly ignorant (2 Peter 3:5).

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Thanks again.

Even though it might not be official, i strongly believe that some wanted ‘side’ effects of the introduction of the AA-Theory, was to encourage other people to do their own investigations.

There is a multitude of ancient texts out there. These texts gives us all pieces of information from mankind’s remote past. It’s actually like a huge puzzle. They all need to be pieced together so they eventually make up a total history.

These texts are pretty much everything mankind have inherited from the past, and the more people who studies these texts and contributes to understand them, the bigger is the chance to recover the greater picture. Even though there might not ever be a real hardcore proof to back up the theory, the personal happiness and inner piece one gets by realizing one eventually knows the truth are worth every hour one puts down into study those texts. Thus proofs and ridiculing are of lesser importance.

It probably sounds like someone a religious might say, but even though I regard myself an AA-theory supporter, I still regard myself a Christian, because after years of study I finally found out who gave us Christianity and what it’s real purpose was. When I furthermore understood that our alien forefathers themselves were Christians, I eventually realized that even they didn’t have all the answers. Because someone must eventually have created them too. Thus it is perhaps something bigger than all this after all.

ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

I have to admit, if there was ever an animal that looked like it evolved, it’s the Mudskipper. This animal is both an amphibian and a fish. It can breathe under water and on land. Surprisingly, there are several other animals that are able to do this as well (Lungfish, Wooly Sculpin, etc). Despite these facts, the evidence still says that the Mudskipper is created, not evolved. Regardless of what textbooks and bias teachers say, evolution is unproven. There has never, ever been a transitional fossil found. In other words, there has never been a single bone found that shows an animal transitioning, or evolving, into a different animal. There have been many claims about such fossils, but not a single one has ever proven to be real. If evolution takes millions of years and we are still evolving, then we should find half evolved animals everywhere. Evolution is simply not happening in the world around us.

That first sentence sums up the credibility of the whole piece. "If there was ever an animal that looked like it evolved....".

Brilliant thanks.

edit on 16-11-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)

helldiver

ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

I have to admit, if there was ever an animal that looked like it evolved, it’s the Mudskipper. This animal is both an amphibian and a fish. It can breathe under water and on land. Surprisingly, there are several other animals that are able to do this as well (Lungfish, Wooly Sculpin, etc). Despite these facts, the evidence still says that the Mudskipper is created, not evolved. Regardless of what textbooks and bias teachers say, evolution is unproven. There has never, ever been a transitional fossil found. In other words, there has never been a single bone found that shows an animal transitioning, or evolving, into a different animal. There have been many claims about such fossils, but not a single one has ever proven to be real. If evolution takes millions of years and we are still evolving, then we should find half evolved animals everywhere. Evolution is simply not happening in the world around us.

Now if you can show me another fish evolve into a mudskipper that would be something.

That first sentence sums up the credibility of the whole piece. "If there was ever an animal that looked like it evolved....".

Brilliant thanks.

Show me the fish Mudskippers came from, and the transitional forms inbetween. Show me a mudskipper give rise to something other than a mud skipper. That was my point its been three hours and not one person can come up with just one piece of evidence for macro-evolution. Everyone claims there is all this evidence out there, but when asked no one can provide even one....

ServantOfTheLamb

helldiver

ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

I have to admit, if there was ever an animal that looked like it evolved, it’s the Mudskipper. This animal is both an amphibian and a fish. It can breathe under water and on land. Surprisingly, there are several other animals that are able to do this as well (Lungfish, Wooly Sculpin, etc). Despite these facts, the evidence still says that the Mudskipper is created, not evolved. Regardless of what textbooks and bias teachers say, evolution is unproven. There has never, ever been a transitional fossil found. In other words, there has never been a single bone found that shows an animal transitioning, or evolving, into a different animal. There have been many claims about such fossils, but not a single one has ever proven to be real. If evolution takes millions of years and we are still evolving, then we should find half evolved animals everywhere. Evolution is simply not happening in the world around us.

Now if you can show me another fish evolve into a mudskipper that would be something.

That first sentence sums up the credibility of the whole piece. "If there was ever an animal that looked like it evolved....".

Brilliant thanks.

Show me the fish Mudskippers came from, and the transitional forms inbetween. Show me a mudskipper give rise to something other than a mud skipper. That was my point its been three hours and not one person can come up with just one piece of evidence for macro-evolution. Everyone claims there is all this evidence out there, but when asked no one can provide even one....

Pick any extinct goby you like and you have your answer.

helldiver

ServantOfTheLamb

helldiver

ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

I have to admit, if there was ever an animal that looked like it evolved, it’s the Mudskipper. This animal is both an amphibian and a fish. It can breathe under water and on land. Surprisingly, there are several other animals that are able to do this as well (Lungfish, Wooly Sculpin, etc). Despite these facts, the evidence still says that the Mudskipper is created, not evolved. Regardless of what textbooks and bias teachers say, evolution is unproven. There has never, ever been a transitional fossil found. In other words, there has never been a single bone found that shows an animal transitioning, or evolving, into a different animal. There have been many claims about such fossils, but not a single one has ever proven to be real. If evolution takes millions of years and we are still evolving, then we should find half evolved animals everywhere. Evolution is simply not happening in the world around us.

Now if you can show me another fish evolve into a mudskipper that would be something.

That first sentence sums up the credibility of the whole piece. "If there was ever an animal that looked like it evolved....".

Brilliant thanks.

Show me the fish Mudskippers came from, and the transitional forms inbetween. Show me a mudskipper give rise to something other than a mud skipper. That was my point its been three hours and not one person can come up with just one piece of evidence for macro-evolution. Everyone claims there is all this evidence out there, but when asked no one can provide even one....

Pick any extinct goby you like and you have your answer.

I am sorry I cannot take that on faith.

Look in the mirror and you'll see what mudskippers evolve into.

Tetrapod (a category the mudskipper belongs to)

The superclass Tetrapoda (Ancient Greek τετραπόδηs tetrapodēs, "four-footed"), or the tetrapods, comprises the first four-limbed vertebrates and their descendants, including the living and extinct amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

The change from a body plan for breathing and navigating in water to a body plan enabling the animal to move on land is one of the most profound evolutionary changes known. It is also one of the best understood, largely thanks to a number of significant fossil finds in the late 20th century combined with improved phylogenetic analysis.

In essence, those muskippers given a few hundred million years have the potential to turn into dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, as well as something resembling humans.

Meanwhile, since the tetrapod muskipper is a successful adaptation in and of and by itself, so long as that ecological niche remains, that species will also remain while outlier adaptations take to land, or back to water.

Extant (living) tetrapods:

Following the great faunal turnover at the end of the Mesozoic, only six major groups of tetrapods were left, all of which also include many extinct groups:

Lissamphibia: frogs and toads, newts and salamanders, and caecilians
Testudines: turtles and tortoises
Lepidosauria: tuataras, lizards, amphisbaenians and snakes
Crocodilia: crocodiles, alligators, caimans and gharials
Neornithes: modern birds
Mammalia: mammals

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Here you go. Try reading this.

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Here you go. Try reading this.

Nice one! Saved to bookmarks :-)

helldiver

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Here you go. Try reading this.

Nice one! Saved to bookmarks :-)

You're very welcome.

Give it up. Creationism cannot beat evolution at this point in time, if not ever. Your every objection has been met fully and soundly with all the science you could ever need.

Its just a matter of the truth making you feel good about your miserable existence. That's not what science is for.