The Grandest Conspiracy Ever Known. The New Age Religion of the Unproven Speculation (theory) of Evo

I suppose the real difference between the two theories is that one side does not falsely claim to have scientific proof and the other side does.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Well your graphic representation seems to be leaving out a lot of the lineages.

Take a look at the list here under "Species"

When searching for evidence of evolution try to find any source that does not continuously use words like estimated, possibly, assumed, believed and the like. I bet you cannot find one. The point being, it is all speculation. As to the question where did the freaks go? There was a world wide flood that has also been well documented by every culture from every corner of the globe.

I stand by my assertion that there are no fossils that show every stage of development between any two species. This has been a problem for a long time as Darwin predicted there would be billions and he himself said he had no idea why none were found.

The best evidence against evo is the lack of real evidence for it.

If the evidence that I have presented is not enough to at least make you question the validity of the theory well than that just proves that you have been indoctrinated religiously.

reply to post by paradox


the representation is tongue in cheek, I'm sure you understand? it works well for what SFX and I were discussing and where the gap is.

which still hasn't been filled in btw... it's quite important considering the time frame and lack of evidence from the fairly recent period on the timescale.

punctuated equilibrium seems to be the only answer but why is it that we can trace the lineages for other species and view their evolutionary ladder complete to present day?

reply to post by SisyphusRide


There are gaps in every supposed leap from any one species to any other. Not just chimp to man. You will not find any creature with a scale that is half evolved into a feather. They either have scales or feathers. This is the biggest problem with the whole theory.

"Imagine that a species evolves, over time, from species A to species Z. The creationist will demand evidence of a 'transitional' species in between A and Z. But of course ... there really isn't any such thing as a 'transitional species'. One day species H is found, and is shown to be a 'transition' state between A and Z. But crucially, it is not a 'transitional species' ... it is a species in its own right.

Because species H is a species in its own right, as will be the case with any and every fossil discovered......the creationist deviously shifts to arguing that there is no evidence of a 'transitional species' between A and H, and between H and Z....thus giving the impression that there is now double the transitional evidence required."

This is an argument I found explaining the lack of transitional species. There are no transition species because they are all separate individual species is the basic argument. Of course this is absurd because there are still (no matter what you call them), many missing species (links) in the fossil record. No matter what you call them they still do not exist. I find it interesting that the author uses a and z instead of a and c for an example. The implication being that between a and z only h can be found which ironically is an accurate representation of the situation as it indicates that there is alot of missing theoretical fossil evidence.

The author then goes on to wonder why Richard Dawkins did not use this argument. The obvious answer being that Richard Dawkins has a brain.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by begoodbees
you were telling me that weather is an external force in the "natural" process of evolution. Ignorance defined.

lol!!!! I didn't say weather, silly goose. I said environment. It seems you have trouble comprehending this as well.

Climate for example, indeed effects evolution. This is why you have animals suitable for jungles in the jungle, animals suited for the arctic in the arctic, etc. How you can even attempt to argue this is hilarious!

Ignorance defined.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by begoodbees


Do you really not understand the difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE? lol!!!

Climate is not a constant in different parts of the world, therefore it is an external factor on the species native to those areas. Or do you think polar bears live in Africa or something?

Originally posted by Jonny1993

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

Originally posted by Jonny1993
Explain vestigial organs without evolution.

If we were indeed created by a perfect god and in his image, why do we have flawed bodies?

prove it...

if it disagrees with experiment it isn't true. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful it is, it doesn't make any difference how smart you are or what their name is... if it can't be proved by experiment, it isn't true.

God is the creator of all life, who is to say he didn't create it to evolve?

Humans have a yolk sac that doesn't make yolk.
Whales have hind limbs.
You don't believe evolution because you can't see it happen, but the truth is is that evolution is a slow process and we have seen it happen over time. It's not something that happens overnight.

Why wouldn't god make something perfect the first time or have create absolutely unnecessary organs?
Evolution and religion are incompatible.

Since the yolk sac you pointed out does not produce yolk, I question who named it a yolk sac and why? It by definition is not a yolk sac at all is it?

All of the evidence that supports evolution also supports creation. This is not complicated.

It is only perspective that dictates which you prefer. Common ancestry. If we evolved, common ancestry makes sense. If we were created, common ancestry also makes sense.

All motor vehicles share common decent and therefore have alot of the same parts made of the same materials. That does not mean that they evolved on their own. We all know that all of our technology has evolved under our guidance.

Perhaps on a different planet their are vehicles that do not resemble ours at all because they were created by different intelligent beings. Not because they spontaneously evolved their.

The same is true with all of the circumstantial evidence.

"To refute your point of it being "not just implausible but impossible", I'd point to the Miller-Urey experiment -- granted it's a favorite whipping boy of creationists -- but, more importantly the refinements to the experiment that have taken place since the original experiments in order to better mimic the primordial atmosphere. Abelson and Holland refined our understanding of the primordial atmosphere in the 1960's and even Miller said that his assumptions about the atmosphere at the time of his original experiment had been wrong. What happens when you replicate the Miller-Urey experiment with an atmosphere that more closely models the primordial atmosphere as it is understood now? You not only get amino acids, as in the original experiment, you get nucleotides and nucleotide chains. So it's easy to understand how complexity can arise from a "pool of chemicals", especially when you look at the formation of amino acid chains as the very simple dehydration reaction that aligns the amine end of the molecule to the carboxylic acid end of the molecule that it is."

Getting a few molecules to stick together in a lab with the intervention of scientists is far different than DNA (more complex by a billion times) forming all on its own in any environment. We are also speculating as to what the environment was like.

Belief in evolution is really just an assumption that there is no one out there capable of creating life therefore it must have happened all on it's own somehow. Since it is based on beliefs and not proof it is a religion. There is nothing wrong with having a religion, just call it what it is though.

Originally posted by begoodbees
All of the evidence that supports evolution also supports creation. This is not complicated.

It is only perspective that dictates which you prefer. Common ancestry. If we evolved, common ancestry makes sense. If we were created, common ancestry also makes sense.

All motor vehicles share common decent and therefore have alot of the same parts made of the same materials. That does not mean that they evolved on their own. We all know that all of our technology has evolved under our guidance.

Perhaps on a different planet their are vehicles that do not resemble ours at all because they were created by different intelligent beings. Not because they spontaneously evolved their.

The same is true with all of the circumstantial evidence.

edit on 18-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

Using your analogy, that would be equated to us putting manual clutches in every single car which has an automatic transmission. It makes no sense.

So basically what you're saying is that the human body is a design, but it is not a very intelligent one. What is the point of wisdom teeth? The appendix? Why aren't our adrenal glands smaller? Why do women grow hair under their armpits?

Originally posted by LightOrange

Originally posted by begoodbees
All of the evidence that supports evolution also supports creation. This is not complicated.

It is only perspective that dictates which you prefer. Common ancestry. If we evolved, common ancestry makes sense. If we were created, common ancestry also makes sense.

All motor vehicles share common decent and therefore have alot of the same parts made of the same materials. That does not mean that they evolved on their own. We all know that all of our technology has evolved under our guidance.

Perhaps on a different planet their are vehicles that do not resemble ours at all because they were created by different intelligent beings. Not because they spontaneously evolved their.

The same is true with all of the circumstantial evidence.

edit on 18-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

Using your analogy, that would be equated to us putting manual clutches in every single car which has an automatic transmission. It makes no sense.

So basically what you're saying is that the human body is a design, but it is not a very intelligent one. What is the point of wisdom teeth? The appendix? Why aren't our adrenal glands smaller? Why do women grow hair under their armpits?

edit on 18-12-2012 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2012 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)

The vestigial organ thing has already been addressed and dismissed. Every part has a purpose. I know you were probably taught in school that they do not but that part of the indoctrination has been proven false. You can google it if you like.