What is your idea of the afterlife?
- Thread starter CoolWaterz
- Start date
his quote has nothing to do with the points i put up and you failed to answer them!
btw for the people who don't know, and example of irreducible complexity is probably the bird lung and dinosaur lung, some scientists think that birds evolved from dinosaurs yet bird lungs and lizard lungs are totally different from one another, so no 2 lizards could mate to make a bird lung. Of course maybe a few more years of study could solve it but right now its unanswerable.
It doesn't mean that evolution is defunct because of the simple problem of irreducible complexity, there could be an answer out there that we haven't found yet
It doesn't mean that evolution is defunct because of the simple problem of irreducible complexity, there could be an answer out there that we haven't found yet
lmao only hole in the darwin theory? are you serious? everything about the theory is a hole, in fact the freakin theory itself is a hole
im still waiting for an answer to this question.. How did the first organism, the so-called ancestor of all species according to Darwin, come into existence? Could natural processes give life to something which was originally inanimate?
do you know in darwins book origin of species in the chapter "difficulties of the theory" darwin failed to answer this question? and the answers he provided for the rest of these difficulties had no scientific validity whatsoever. and more recent scientific findings have merely increased these difficulties.
the future is not looking so good for the theory of evolution man, 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.
i give the theory of evolution another 15-20 years before it completely collapses and not a day more
im still waiting for an answer to this question.. How did the first organism, the so-called ancestor of all species according to Darwin, come into existence? Could natural processes give life to something which was originally inanimate?
do you know in darwins book origin of species in the chapter "difficulties of the theory" darwin failed to answer this question? and the answers he provided for the rest of these difficulties had no scientific validity whatsoever. and more recent scientific findings have merely increased these difficulties.
the future is not looking so good for the theory of evolution man, 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.
i give the theory of evolution another 15-20 years before it completely collapses and not a day more
Well since you're copying/pasting from sites i might as well do it and save time typing
It is believed that heterotrophs were the first beginnings of life on Earth, inhabiting the sea and absorbing the organic material that was being created by the reactions of Earth at the time (i.e. the creation of amino acids). The building blocks of life created these organisms and also acted as a food source.
This is where the idea of a food chain becomes relevant. When these first autotrophs died, the organic material that they consist of would break down and add to the 'organic soup' that was feeding these organisms at the time.
Alias, it is believed that heterotrophic bacteria was the first signs of life on Earth.
Now its time to question religion.
In the 1600's there was a book (forgot the name, we studied portions of it in philosophy) that talked about how religions true cause was to make people follow laws, who would follow the word of a man when they could follow the law of a God who could judge you for the things you do? All major civilizations had laws and punishment connected to religion, from the egyptians (pharoah was a god, no one could oppose him), the chinese (emperor had a Mandate From Heaven), the greeks and many others. So many religions around the world yet we have so many religions saying "our religion is the right one"? Why won't god send another prophet to clear everything up? Wars are fought all the time because of religion, what loving God would allow that?
It is believed that heterotrophs were the first beginnings of life on Earth, inhabiting the sea and absorbing the organic material that was being created by the reactions of Earth at the time (i.e. the creation of amino acids). The building blocks of life created these organisms and also acted as a food source.
This is where the idea of a food chain becomes relevant. When these first autotrophs died, the organic material that they consist of would break down and add to the 'organic soup' that was feeding these organisms at the time.
Alias, it is believed that heterotrophic bacteria was the first signs of life on Earth.
Now its time to question religion.
In the 1600's there was a book (forgot the name, we studied portions of it in philosophy) that talked about how religions true cause was to make people follow laws, who would follow the word of a man when they could follow the law of a God who could judge you for the things you do? All major civilizations had laws and punishment connected to religion, from the egyptians (pharoah was a god, no one could oppose him), the chinese (emperor had a Mandate From Heaven), the greeks and many others. So many religions around the world yet we have so many religions saying "our religion is the right one"? Why won't god send another prophet to clear everything up? Wars are fought all the time because of religion, what loving God would allow that?
In my head the afterlife is a rebirth to a place of endless possibilities, with one ruler who only calls when hyour needed. For instance lets say I'ma musician maybe I can play music that never ends, or smoke blunts that bring me to a high that last for years. I might be able to make love with a woman in some strange afterlife way of making love and it might last ages. I might be given jobs to go back to earth and gide a mortal by being his spirit or visit hell to try to cleanse a former loved ones soul. I might learn new tricks from soemone who's been in the afterlife longer than me. I might be a king to a worl that I create. To me it's just endless possibilities.
But an animal knows how and when to keep warm and stay in its shelter so how come a bear for instances it hasnt shed its hair from its body? Also if we all started came from Africa what colour was the first man, and how did all the diffrent colours of people come into bieng? You still havent provided anything for the question I asked on how come there are not half evolved creatures around us.
If a 'better' theory (i.e. one which explains all the evidence without making assumptions) is devised, then evolution might be replaced. As it stands, I'm not aware of one. But don't assume that everyone would turn around and say "Evolution was wrong, I'm going religious". They wouldn't, they'd simply improve upon the theory.
Well scientifically you do turn into energy (carbons etc) that feeds other creatures.
Some animals aren't intelligent enough to know how to keep warm other than to find shelter, they don't know to hunt down other animals, skin them and wear their skins. If a bear losted its fur it would die in the winter they would freeze to death.
The first humans were probably black, and while humans spreaded across Europe and Asia over thousands of years their skin colour and characteristics changed because of living enviroment and food nutrition.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/snake_vestigial_limb.html Picture of evolution in the process.
Some animals aren't intelligent enough to know how to keep warm other than to find shelter, they don't know to hunt down other animals, skin them and wear their skins. If a bear losted its fur it would die in the winter they would freeze to death.
The first humans were probably black, and while humans spreaded across Europe and Asia over thousands of years their skin colour and characteristics changed because of living enviroment and food nutrition.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/snake_vestigial_limb.html Picture of evolution in the process.
It is only humans who have been given the intellegence you speak off to cover up with clothes. So the first humans where black how did they come into existence? And all white, asian etc men came from them, most conditions around the world are basically similiar with the exception some are hotter and some are colder so how did the living enviroment play a part, and you said the food also played a role in how certain people turned out so if I start eating chinese food everyday over time will my family after me turn chinese?
All gorillas, tigers, lions, bears, horses etc all look the same why is it we all dont look the same every human is different than the other and like I said before even identical twins have there differences.
ps your link is dead
All gorillas, tigers, lions, bears, horses etc all look the same why is it we all dont look the same every human is different than the other and like I said before even identical twins have there differences.
ps your link is dead
No you wouldn't turn chinese, because chinese food has changed from 10,000 years ago when humans spread around asia. Food intake was probably low in protein which caused them to shorten, while people in europe (for example the celtics) probably had a high protein diet and grew taller. I read somewhere that people in the world are growing taller now because of globalization of food and diversity in diet etc.
Bears/tigers/other animals may LOOK the same, but tiger paw prints are unique, a bear in canada looks different from a bear in Europe, a husky looks different from a bull dog, and gorillas have unique nose prints. If you study 2 horses side by side long enough you could see each had a unique characteristic but if you just look at them for 10 secs and say "I see no difference" of course there wouldn't be any.
The link works for me, heres the pictures of a snake with primative legs
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/spurs1.jpg/img]
[img]http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/spurs2.jpg
Ya science is wrong, how can you explain rain? snow? natural disasters? I guess the world is flat too right?
Bears/tigers/other animals may LOOK the same, but tiger paw prints are unique, a bear in canada looks different from a bear in Europe, a husky looks different from a bull dog, and gorillas have unique nose prints. If you study 2 horses side by side long enough you could see each had a unique characteristic but if you just look at them for 10 secs and say "I see no difference" of course there wouldn't be any.
The link works for me, heres the pictures of a snake with primative legs
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/spurs1.jpg/img]
[img]http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/spurs2.jpg
Ya science is wrong, how can you explain rain? snow? natural disasters? I guess the world is flat too right?
Yes what food you eats does affect you it has affects on the body no one can argue with that point, so black, asians, hispanics in america and the UK should evolve in the coming years. Your post doesnt answer why most people have distinct different features from one another, where as animals only have slight diffrences, if I lined up 10 humans and 10 gorillas told you there names then mixed them up you wouldnt be able to tell me all the names of each gorilla with the humans you would have a better chance as the features on there faces and shapes are a lot more distinct.
For the snake many evolutionists claim they came from lizards then gradually overtime lost there legs. Following site refutes it www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_1_11.html+snake+with+primitive+legs+refuted&hl=en
For the snake many evolutionists claim they came from lizards then gradually overtime lost there legs. Following site refutes it www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_1_11.html+snake+with+primitive+legs+refuted&hl=en
Gorillas live in in a closed society, can gorillas be found in north america? Asia? No, but you can tell the difference between a chimpanze and a gorilla can't you? Some people think all asians/all blacks/all whites look the same but with slight variations in appearance, the same can be said about apes.
The picture of the snake fossil on that site you linked only shows a 50 million year old fossil, the earliest "snake like" fossil they found was 130 millions years ago, but it only had a few backbones which have characteristics of a snake. They could have evolved in those 70 million years, and evolve even more after that, Vipers did not appear until 10 million years ago.
The picture of the snake fossil on that site you linked only shows a 50 million year old fossil, the earliest "snake like" fossil they found was 130 millions years ago, but it only had a few backbones which have characteristics of a snake. They could have evolved in those 70 million years, and evolve even more after that, Vipers did not appear until 10 million years ago.
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.
Members online
No members online now.