Religeonz Are Gangz
- Thread starter KFatal
- Start date
i repeated 5 times, i dont deny that god exists, obvoiusly it all had to start somewhere, BUT the story being told isnt the truth..
evolution is very real, and all you bible thumpers must learn to deal with it.
take a look at the years of those publications man, they are over 20 years old, lots has happened in 20 years, once again, your a stupid fucking moron, i hate to say it, a physicists look at evolution?
thats nonsense, the bottom line is there is evidence, today, that wasnt there in 1933, that proves evolution is nearly fact, u really are going to post a scientists idea from 1933?
come on man, do better than that the fact remains that
evolution in the last 20 years has had so much evidence supporting it that a man with a brain can not deny it.
but go ahead live in ignorance, it doesnt matter to me, u think those guys are more intelligent than myself. sad to tell you that i know things those guys wouldnt dream of, because im fortunate to live int he year 2000, a scientist from the 30s, a physicist, a man from the 60s, dont hold up well today and dont have the evidence that we do these days, dont have the technology, and some of the fossil finds.
nice try
evolution is very real, and all you bible thumpers must learn to deal with it.
take a look at the years of those publications man, they are over 20 years old, lots has happened in 20 years, once again, your a stupid fucking moron, i hate to say it, a physicists look at evolution?
thats nonsense, the bottom line is there is evidence, today, that wasnt there in 1933, that proves evolution is nearly fact, u really are going to post a scientists idea from 1933?
come on man, do better than that the fact remains that
evolution in the last 20 years has had so much evidence supporting it that a man with a brain can not deny it.
but go ahead live in ignorance, it doesnt matter to me, u think those guys are more intelligent than myself. sad to tell you that i know things those guys wouldnt dream of, because im fortunate to live int he year 2000, a scientist from the 30s, a physicist, a man from the 60s, dont hold up well today and dont have the evidence that we do these days, dont have the technology, and some of the fossil finds.
nice try
It is a FACT that the earth, with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period, and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. There is evidence in the ground, and in cave paintings, and in our own DNA.
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution - that 'all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history'. Indeed, 'all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time'. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution, has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
And allow me to disprove the canadian scientist who wrote ORIGIN OF SPECIES remarks..by the way i read that book, have you?
He stats that there are no transitional fossils, thats BS.
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two different creatures. To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable.
Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils millions of years later goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.
The statement that evolution is purely random is hilarious.There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that you dont understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are 'selected' (ie: those with the variation succeed in reproducing more often than those without it), leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
You dont know what you speak, you sound like an idiot. Evolution is far from random, its based on the reproductive success of a species with a particular mutation, or gene. Its not hard to see that it is the truth. The people who wrote in the 30's didnt do the intense carbon dating techniques, the discovery of hundreds of upon 1000's of fossil types over the last 70 years would blow those guys away. What was around back then, has advanced eons to today. Im done typing this shit, my head hurts, and im tired of arguing with a fool. If you dont believe evolution doesnt ruin my day, it just shows me your blind to facts.
Have a Nice Day.
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution - that 'all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history'. Indeed, 'all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time'. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution, has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
And allow me to disprove the canadian scientist who wrote ORIGIN OF SPECIES remarks..by the way i read that book, have you?
He stats that there are no transitional fossils, thats BS.
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two different creatures. To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable.
Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils millions of years later goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.
The statement that evolution is purely random is hilarious.There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that you dont understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are 'selected' (ie: those with the variation succeed in reproducing more often than those without it), leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
You dont know what you speak, you sound like an idiot. Evolution is far from random, its based on the reproductive success of a species with a particular mutation, or gene. Its not hard to see that it is the truth. The people who wrote in the 30's didnt do the intense carbon dating techniques, the discovery of hundreds of upon 1000's of fossil types over the last 70 years would blow those guys away. What was around back then, has advanced eons to today. Im done typing this shit, my head hurts, and im tired of arguing with a fool. If you dont believe evolution doesnt ruin my day, it just shows me your blind to facts.
Have a Nice Day.
tupacmansion said:
I'll be sure to research more on this topic as your reply has intrested me. Also im sure that there is alot of arguments against your theory, but as you (rudely) indicated I am not an expert in this field where as you dedicate all your time to this.
Peace
Have a nice Day, also try to get out more
Peace
Have a nice Day, also try to get out more
no problem, and i do get out, but im in college still, therefore, i still study this and it interests me greatly
pz
^^ Here you go.
The old testement was passed down as word of mouth for generations. It is a representation of stories and ideas, it is not aqurate but the general vibe and big picture is.
Actually it does, and it explains them in a detail that would not have been possible to know without science and archioligists.
I have no idea. But at the same time, I have no idea why God created humans either.
Evolution is a tool of God. But, if you look at the human species evolution, there are gaps that are unexplainable by fossils. The missing link -- it could very well be God's work and manipulation. Furthermore using your bird analogy, what put the first bird there? Im sure you will tell me it went back and back and back and back until we get one single cell. While this is a theory, as is Darwin's THEORY, it cant be proven. And even if it is, what put that first cell there?
What put amphioxus there? And like I said, this is still to my knowledge a theory, but it makes little difference I actually believe it.
Why is it that people are so quick to believe other peoples theories but when it comes to God they dismiss it. You cant see Darwin's theory yourself, you just believe it on blind faith. Science is the new religion. But once again, read my answer to question 4.
Fair enough, but that doesnt disprove the existance of God at all.
You cant disprove that God exists. You believe he doesnt, I believe he does. Both is blind faith. You telling me that your blind faith is better then my blind faith is arrogant, ignorant, and just foolish.
The old testement was passed down as word of mouth for generations. It is a representation of stories and ideas, it is not aqurate but the general vibe and big picture is.
Actually it does, and it explains them in a detail that would not have been possible to know without science and archioligists.
I have no idea. But at the same time, I have no idea why God created humans either.
Evolution is a tool of God. But, if you look at the human species evolution, there are gaps that are unexplainable by fossils. The missing link -- it could very well be God's work and manipulation. Furthermore using your bird analogy, what put the first bird there? Im sure you will tell me it went back and back and back and back until we get one single cell. While this is a theory, as is Darwin's THEORY, it cant be proven. And even if it is, what put that first cell there?
What put amphioxus there? And like I said, this is still to my knowledge a theory, but it makes little difference I actually believe it.
Why is it that people are so quick to believe other peoples theories but when it comes to God they dismiss it. You cant see Darwin's theory yourself, you just believe it on blind faith. Science is the new religion. But once again, read my answer to question 4.
Fair enough, but that doesnt disprove the existance of God at all.
You cant disprove that God exists. You believe he doesnt, I believe he does. Both is blind faith. You telling me that your blind faith is better then my blind faith is arrogant, ignorant, and just foolish.
how the fuck does that support evolution in any way?
the fossil records you speak of that supposed to prove "that all species come from one single common ancestor and that they diverged from one another over a long period of time by small gradual changes." is completely rediculous, instead fossil research conducted in the course of the 20th century has presented a totally different picture.
this common ancestor darwin spoke of never mentioned how it came to be. His only conjecture was that the first cell could have formed as a result of random chemical reactions “in some small warm little pond”. All observations and experiments showed that it was, in a word, impossible for a living cell to arise within inanimate matter by random chemical reactions. Even the English atheist Nobel Prize-winner Fred Hoyle expressed that such a scenario "is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein cant believe how rediculous and brainless some people are to accept that belief!
During the last two decades, many other scientists have published thousands of books questioning the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution. and not nearly as many in favour,
one for example is a book titled 'Evolution - A Theory In Crisis" by a biochemist named Michael denton, he concluded that the theory of evolution is not indisputable scientific truth, as many people assume or try to impose on others. On the contrary, there is a glaring contradiction when the theory of evolution is compared to more recent scientific findings in such diverse fields as the origin of life, population genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology, and biochemistry. In a word, evolution is a theory in "crisis." by examining the theory in the light of different branches of science, the theory of natural selection is very far from providing an explanation for life on earth. Denton's intention in offering his criticism was not to show the correctness of another view, but only to compare Darwinism with the scientific facts.
since darwins time NO evidence has supported his theory, on the contrary most if not all evidence disporves evolution and supports an intelliegnt design!, the 'gradual divergence of life forms' you speak of cannot enable new organs or traits to emerge in living things. natural selection cannot develop a species' genetic data therefore, it cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species. you talk as if this natural selection is an intelligent designer, natural selection has no intelligence. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. as a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity". these systems and organs are composed of a great number of parts cooperating together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. for example, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all its components intact
the will that brings all these parts together should be able to foresee the future and aim directly at the advantage that is to be acquired at the final stage. Since natural selection has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. this fact, which demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin, who wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, my theory would absolutely break down."
If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."
If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world.
In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:
"If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains"
Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realized that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory.
but darwin put forward the following argument: "Right now there are no transitional forms, yet further research will uncover them."
the billions of existing fossil record will surely answer this question. Billions of fossils have been uncovered all around the world. Despite the abundance of fossil sources, not a single transitional form has been uncovered, and it is unlikely that any transitional forms will be found as a result of new excavations ..Evolution my ass!
lol buddy wake up your views are the views of those who lived in the 19th century and early 20th century, since then those views have been invalidated in the 20th century by scientific, political and social developments. Many and various discoveries in the fields of astronomy, biology, psychology and social sciences have nullified the bases of all atheist suppositions, you my friend have been absent on these new scientific findings that totaly tosses away the theory of evolution in the dump, at the same time, this greatest support for atheism is the dogma that has received the greatest blow from scientific discoveries in the 20th century.
the only fucking morons here are your type, what a stupid thing to say
nuff said
have a nice day
the fossil records you speak of that supposed to prove "that all species come from one single common ancestor and that they diverged from one another over a long period of time by small gradual changes." is completely rediculous, instead fossil research conducted in the course of the 20th century has presented a totally different picture.
this common ancestor darwin spoke of never mentioned how it came to be. His only conjecture was that the first cell could have formed as a result of random chemical reactions “in some small warm little pond”. All observations and experiments showed that it was, in a word, impossible for a living cell to arise within inanimate matter by random chemical reactions. Even the English atheist Nobel Prize-winner Fred Hoyle expressed that such a scenario "is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein cant believe how rediculous and brainless some people are to accept that belief!
During the last two decades, many other scientists have published thousands of books questioning the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution. and not nearly as many in favour,
one for example is a book titled 'Evolution - A Theory In Crisis" by a biochemist named Michael denton, he concluded that the theory of evolution is not indisputable scientific truth, as many people assume or try to impose on others. On the contrary, there is a glaring contradiction when the theory of evolution is compared to more recent scientific findings in such diverse fields as the origin of life, population genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology, and biochemistry. In a word, evolution is a theory in "crisis." by examining the theory in the light of different branches of science, the theory of natural selection is very far from providing an explanation for life on earth. Denton's intention in offering his criticism was not to show the correctness of another view, but only to compare Darwinism with the scientific facts.
since darwins time NO evidence has supported his theory, on the contrary most if not all evidence disporves evolution and supports an intelliegnt design!, the 'gradual divergence of life forms' you speak of cannot enable new organs or traits to emerge in living things. natural selection cannot develop a species' genetic data therefore, it cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species. you talk as if this natural selection is an intelligent designer, natural selection has no intelligence. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. as a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity". these systems and organs are composed of a great number of parts cooperating together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. for example, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all its components intact
the will that brings all these parts together should be able to foresee the future and aim directly at the advantage that is to be acquired at the final stage. Since natural selection has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. this fact, which demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin, who wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, my theory would absolutely break down."
If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."
If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world.
In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:
"If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains"
Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realized that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory.
but darwin put forward the following argument: "Right now there are no transitional forms, yet further research will uncover them."
the billions of existing fossil record will surely answer this question. Billions of fossils have been uncovered all around the world. Despite the abundance of fossil sources, not a single transitional form has been uncovered, and it is unlikely that any transitional forms will be found as a result of new excavations ..Evolution my ass!
lol buddy wake up your views are the views of those who lived in the 19th century and early 20th century, since then those views have been invalidated in the 20th century by scientific, political and social developments. Many and various discoveries in the fields of astronomy, biology, psychology and social sciences have nullified the bases of all atheist suppositions, you my friend have been absent on these new scientific findings that totaly tosses away the theory of evolution in the dump, at the same time, this greatest support for atheism is the dogma that has received the greatest blow from scientific discoveries in the 20th century.
the only fucking morons here are your type, what a stupid thing to say
nuff said
have a nice day
All of the Australopithecus species you listed above are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. Many other characteristics-such as the details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs-constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today's ape. However, evolutionists still claim that, although australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans.
This claim that australopithecines walked upright was desperate and laughable at the same time.
many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines have proved the invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard,
they showed that
to even bring the austral. into the argument when evolutionists themselves have accepted the fact that they cannot be counted on as an ancestor of man just shows how far back you are and how little you know about the more recent findings!
have a nice day
This claim that australopithecines walked upright was desperate and laughable at the same time.
many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines have proved the invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard,
they showed that
to even bring the austral. into the argument when evolutionists themselves have accepted the fact that they cannot be counted on as an ancestor of man just shows how far back you are and how little you know about the more recent findings!
have a nice day
Job 40:21-23 mentions that a "behemoth" ate grass like an ox and had a tail like cedar. It does not say how large this cedar was, it would've been a twig, it would've been a branch, some people assume it would be the size of a full grown cedar (which automatically means dinosaur). It then says "Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh. The lotus conceal him in their shadow". No reed is large enough to hide a huge dinosaur. Also it says...
Sounds more like a dragon then a dinosaur. Unless you think dinosaurs breathed fire.
Sounds more like a dragon then a dinosaur. Unless you think dinosaurs breathed fire.
Glockmatic said:
And the views of creationists are the views of those who lived 2 millenia ago
yes but we are talking about the fields of science here not religion, my faith has not changed in over 1400 years, it is the unchanged word of God and will always remain unchanged until the last day, science however changes by the day with more advanced technology, there is a big difference between 19th century technology and 21st century technology do you not agree?
there is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird
natural selection is not a conscious designer, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living beings. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that have the feature of "irreducible complexity". These systems and organs are composed of the co-operation of a great number of parts and they are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, human eye does not function unless it exists with all its details). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to figure the future in advance and aim directly for the benefit that is to be acquired at the last stage. Since natural mechanism has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing.
natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. that is, it cannot make anything evolve. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur".
natural selection is not a conscious designer, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living beings. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that have the feature of "irreducible complexity". These systems and organs are composed of the co-operation of a great number of parts and they are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, human eye does not function unless it exists with all its details). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to figure the future in advance and aim directly for the benefit that is to be acquired at the last stage. Since natural mechanism has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing.
natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. that is, it cannot make anything evolve. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur".
The fact remains it is obviously describing something, the size is not relevent as God shows Job one of these animals and dinasours came in all different shapes and sizes. What is imporant is that this is a creature, a dinasaur that according to evolution died out before humans came and therefor people back then, if they made the story, could not possibly have known it existed.
Well actually now that you mention it, it is possible certain species breathed fire. Certain modern day beetles breath fire. It is possible and something bones may not tell us.
Well actually now that you mention it, it is possible certain species breathed fire. Certain modern day beetles breath fire. It is possible and something bones may not tell us.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.