Reply With Quote
A monkey? Ape? yeah sure.
Nope, Not gonna get into it with you. I have reason to believe what I believe. Look for the answers yourself.
A monkey? Ape? yeah sure.
Never looked into it. Nor do I care.
No, I said human like creatures.
Beings that more closely resemble humans than they would any other animal.
Do you believe those existed before humans?
No thanks the burden of proof is on you for your beliefs. I'll continue to believe what is supported by science and countless scientists.
Ignore the Contradictions
The theory of evolution is full of contradictions, resulting in debates and arguments among evolutionists. Coyne says these controversies prove how strong the theory is.
Critics of evolution seize upon these controversies, arguing that they show something is wrong with the theory of evolution itself. But this is specious. There is no dissent among serious biologists about the major claims of evolutionary theory—only about the details of how evolution occurred, and about the relative roles of various evolutionary mechanisms. Far from discrediting evolution, the “controversies” are in fact the sign of a vibrant, thriving field. What moves science forward is [sic] ignorance, debate, and the testing of alternative theories with observations and experiments. A science without controversy is a science without progress. 22
This is just amazing! There are controversies precisely because the theory is wrong. He says all the people who believe in evolution really believe in evolution (they just believe other believers in evolution are wrong). The fact that there is so much ignorance and controversy about evolution proves how true it must be.
If it is true that debate about evolution promotes scientific progress, why is it that evolutionists go to court to prevent debate about evolution from being discussed in American public schools?
The more you read about evolution, written by evolutionists, the less you will believe it!
What burden? I don't have to prove anything to you, I really don't give a what you believe.
Which is what specifically in reference to dating?
I don't know of any human like creatures besides apes/monkeys.
You're right you don't have to prove anything. But obviously if you had any idea what you were talking about you'd probably want to try considering your beliefs are not widely accepted.
This is Christian dogma.
Have you just chosen to be ignorant of this or have you received a substandard education?
I really don't care what is widely accepted. It was once widely accepted that smoking was good for you. Like I said, I don't trust or believe scientists. If you choose to then more power to you.
What are you even talking about? You mean neanderthals and ?
Sure, Neanderthals and .
What about them? They're humans.
Evolution Is Not Happening Now
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
Evolution Never Happened in the Past
Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3
Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.
Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between do ented fossil species.4
What is your evidence they are humans as we are humans?
Are you calling yourself the same as a Neanderthal?
So who does your thinking for you then? Religious figures? Foil hats?
You can find it on the web, I have. Not that hard.
Hey Avante, in what field did Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. get his degree?
Nope, and if they did then what's it to you? Who does your thinking? Scientist that are constantly wrong and make up to fit into their theories?
just give us a link. The one I see is from something called the Ins ute for Creation Research...lol
What is yours in?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
