Evolution do you believe in it?
PollAgree?
7 votes
Evolution do you believe in it?
If you read this all it really makes sense. 
The theory of evolution says that things change gradually over time for the beneficial. Why then would there be newborn babies. Why is it that animals are ready to in some cases live by themselves almost instantly after birth. There has never been a fossil found that was half reptile and half bird. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place? Abrupt appearance are consistent with the biblical concept of creation “according to its kind”, and a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the “geologic column” and giving the appearance of a “Cambrian Explosion”. Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from “simpler” forms to more complex/higher-level forms, which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression.
Language separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language. However, the Bible does. It says that the first man, Adam, was created able to speak. The Bible also explains why we have different human languages, as God had to "confuse" the common language being used in Babel after the flood, in order to force people to spread out around the world as He wanted. This was only a "surface" confusion though, as all languages express the same underlying basic ideas and concepts, enabling other languages to be learned and understood.
Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of “protoplasm” as believed in Darwin’s day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some “warm little pond” will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The “Law of Biogenesis” states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.
The idea that “nothing works until everything works.” The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn’t matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.
The theory of evolution says that things change gradually over time for the beneficial. Why then would there be newborn babies. Why is it that animals are ready to in some cases live by themselves almost instantly after birth. There has never been a fossil found that was half reptile and half bird. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place? Abrupt appearance are consistent with the biblical concept of creation “according to its kind”, and a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the “geologic column” and giving the appearance of a “Cambrian Explosion”. Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from “simpler” forms to more complex/higher-level forms, which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression.
Language separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language. However, the Bible does. It says that the first man, Adam, was created able to speak. The Bible also explains why we have different human languages, as God had to "confuse" the common language being used in Babel after the flood, in order to force people to spread out around the world as He wanted. This was only a "surface" confusion though, as all languages express the same underlying basic ideas and concepts, enabling other languages to be learned and understood.
Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of “protoplasm” as believed in Darwin’s day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some “warm little pond” will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The “Law of Biogenesis” states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.
The idea that “nothing works until everything works.” The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn’t matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.
Fatcat, I've been arguing for evolution (and science in general) for a while now, I've also been keeping myself up to date with your creationism nonsense and the evolution vs. creationism debate (Don't even try to pull that ID bullshit on me, anyone can see through that). Everything you have learned about evolutionary theory has been from far-right evangelical propagandists. If you want to know what evolution actually is Berkley has been kind enough to make a website explaining evolution.
Understanding Evolution
I haven't bothered reading through your thread because I know what you people repeat all the time, the unoriginality is getting annoying.
There is also a video series out refuting creationist claims:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
Understanding Evolution
I haven't bothered reading through your thread because I know what you people repeat all the time, the unoriginality is getting annoying.
There is also a video series out refuting creationist claims:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
Originally Posted by Paroxysm
Fatcat, I've been arguing for evolution (and science in general) for a while now, I've also been keeping myself up to date with your creationism nonsense and the evolution vs. creationism debate (Don't even try to pull that ID bullshit on me, anyone can see through that). Everything you have learned about evolutionary theory has been from far-right evangelical propagandists. If you want to know what evolution actually is Berkley has been kind enough to make a website explaining evolution.
Understanding Evolutionⓘ
I haven't bothered reading through your thread because I know what you people repeat all the time, the unoriginality is getting annoying.
There is also a video series out refuting creationist claims:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.ⓘ
Understanding Evolutionⓘ
I haven't bothered reading through your thread because I know what you people repeat all the time, the unoriginality is getting annoying.
There is also a video series out refuting creationist claims:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.ⓘ
I have also read things on evolution before but it can not explain its many flaws.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This should clear up a thing or two.
Scientists propose new hypothesis on the origin of life
This should clear up a thing or two.
Scientists propose new hypothesis on the origin of life
Not in the least.
evolution is real its happening right now to millions of little things around us. even bacteria can evolve and adapt. which ever religious fuck voted no needs to die
Phillip Johnson, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has written several books about the evolution debate. He approaches the evidence for and against evolution as though evaluating a legal case. He notes the strong vested interests involved in the debate: "Naturalistic evolution is not merely a scientific theory; it is the official creation story of modern culture. The scientific priesthood that has authority to interpret the official creation story gains immense cultural influence thereby, which it might lose if the story were called into question. The experts therefore have a vested interest in protecting the story . . ." (Darwin on Trial, 1993, p. 159).
But for all of you educated people. Answer this not with a link i want to hear you answer it in your own words.
Many educated people accept the theory of evolution. But is it true? Curiously enough, our existence as human beings is one of the best arguments against it. According to evolutionary theory, the traits that offer the greatest advantage for survival are passed from generation to generation. Yet human reproduction itself argues powerfully against this fundamental premise of evolution.
If human beings are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?
But for all of you educated people. Answer this not with a link i want to hear you answer it in your own words.
Many educated people accept the theory of evolution. But is it true? Curiously enough, our existence as human beings is one of the best arguments against it. According to evolutionary theory, the traits that offer the greatest advantage for survival are passed from generation to generation. Yet human reproduction itself argues powerfully against this fundamental premise of evolution.
If human beings are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?
because every species follows it's own path in evolution and we are not one celled organisms therefore we can't simply a sexually reproduce we are to complex for that as for bacteria they are 1 celled so they simply clone each them selves
Originally Posted by fatcat911
Phillip Johnson, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has written several books about the evolution debate. He approaches the evidence for and against evolution as though evaluating a legal case. He notes the strong vested interests involved in the debate: "Naturalistic evolution is not merely a scientific theory; it is the official creation story of modern culture. The scientific priesthood that has authority to interpret the official creation story gains immense cultural influence thereby, which it might lose if the story were called into question. The experts therefore have a vested interest in protecting the story . . ." (Darwin on Trial, 1993, p. 159).
But for all of you educated people. Answer this not with a link i want to hear you answer it in your own words.
Many educated people accept the theory of evolution. But is it true? Curiously enough, our existence as human beings is one of the best arguments against it. According to evolutionary theory, the traits that offer the greatest advantage for survival are passed from generation to generation. Yet human reproduction itself argues powerfully against this fundamental premise of evolution.
If human beings are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?
But for all of you educated people. Answer this not with a link i want to hear you answer it in your own words.
Many educated people accept the theory of evolution. But is it true? Curiously enough, our existence as human beings is one of the best arguments against it. According to evolutionary theory, the traits that offer the greatest advantage for survival are passed from generation to generation. Yet human reproduction itself argues powerfully against this fundamental premise of evolution.
If human beings are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?
I wouldn't say humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary processes.
all i can say is -.-
Obviously, evolution makes sense. Things that can't cope die out, how would it happen any other way?
I don't deny the possibility of outside influences not related to evolution though. If you deny the existence of the weaker creatures dieing out and the stronger once surviving, I think you're a bit silly. There's no real reason another theory can't jump in though.
I don't deny the possibility of outside influences not related to evolution though. If you deny the existence of the weaker creatures dieing out and the stronger once surviving, I think you're a bit silly. There's no real reason another theory can't jump in though.
i do believe evolution is true although i also belive that a higher power was the original creator of everything i believe he created things for them to evolve ob there own and take there own coarse he basically put a bunch of building blocks in space and watch what happened. and thats were we are today
