Reply With Quote
Karl Marx was a brilliant philosopher and thinker. His writings have had a profound effect on humanity, and anyone in his day and age would most likely have been affected the same way by Darwin.
I don't get what your quote is supposed to prove.
Well, forms of evolution have been already shown to occur during our lifetime. Of course, if you want to go the BS macro/micro evolution route, then no. That could be because macroevolution usuallys takes hundreds of generations though.
Karl Marx was a brilliant philosopher and thinker. His writings have had a profound effect on humanity, and anyone in his day and age would most likely have been affected the same way by Darwin.
I don't get what your quote is supposed to prove.
I take it at face value. As a Christian, however, it is what I have to use as the basis for my faith.
As an atheist, I use to think of myriad things that God could do to "prove" himself to me. But as I've grown older, I've realized that wouldn't work either... then I'd "know" God's existence as I would a regular person. That's not quite the same feeling that believers have, I'm relatively sure.
I've come to the acceptance that if there is a God, and he wants me to follow him, he already knows exactly what he has to do for me to believe. So it's pretty much up to him.And I'm completely fine with that.
I couldn't cite you the evidence or link, but I've seen such things illustrated before, and I believe it.
Evolution, I have no doubt is real. There are just some leaps in organisms that nobody has been able to explain by evolution alone.
Find any "creationists" yet? I assume by the term, you mean the more fundamental thinker that believes in radical creation in just 6ix days.
Such as?
You're probably thinking of the "flagella" argument, proposed by Michael Behe. However, that has been debunked by quite a few scientists, and I believe a real example of an alternate evolution has been found as well.
The eye is also often said to be of irreducible complexity, but different stages in the evolution of eyes have been found.
Such as? Also, this is usually referred to as "God of the Gaps" theory, where if one theory does not have the answers, "God" fills them in.
Only a few.
You are sick.
Well said.
Over 200 million murdered by their socialist government which originate from Karl Marx. But yeah I was going to add a Hitler quote about Darwin to show the type of people who used this to murder religious leaders, and cultures. I would love to show the link of these type of mad men but don't have the time to spend on finding the information. That is why all I did was paste the quote, I didn't add my opnion.
Karl Marx did not cause those deaths though; someone took some of his ideas, transformed them into something else, and used that as justification. I don't think Karl Marx was claiming that it was necessary to eliminate an entire people for his philosophy to work.
If anything, I would say Neitzche or Heidegger's philosophical works would have had a more direct impact on the Nazi movement.
Why are these new findings between the time periods of long tail/short tail? In this same vein, what proof do we have concerning the time periods themselves? Why is one considered later in time than the other, and these in the middle of that timespan?
Why is one more 'advanced' than the other, while the newest find is in the middle in terms of 'advancement'?
How are their ages ascertained? Are only pterodactyls found?
What killed them, and why were they grouped together?
Why did they fossilize?
Last edited by z0sa; 10-16-2009 at 02:43 PM.
Zosa, let's not play dumb. The first question is merely an opening so you can claim the supposed faultiness of carbon dating, the second and third are variations on the first, the fourth doesn't make a difference, and the fifth is easily explained by this wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilization
I'm not. Answer the questions, quick evolutionist! Come up with something!
Wrong. You can't carbon date ancient fossils - or anything that is more than thousands of years old. DUH.The first question is merely an opening so you can claim the supposed faultiness of carbon dating,
They are expansions on the same question (which you do not have any idea why I asked), which I duly noted.the second and third are variations on the first,
Then come up with something, quick!the fourth doesn't make a difference,
It doesn't explain WHY these animals fossilized, only HOW the process occurs. So answer the question.and the fifth is easily explained by this wikipedia page.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilization
Fossils need a reason to fossilize.
Indeed, or evolution would be a defunct theory regarding the huge lack of total fossils, regardless of interpretations on existing ones.
What does He have to do, exactly?I've come to the acceptance that if there is a God, and he wants me to follow him, he already knows exactly what he has to do for me to believe. So it's pretty much up to him.
Last edited by Alex Jones; 10-16-2009 at 03:24 PM.
fossils were planted?
That's a new one.
So from a creationist viewpoint, why do fossils fossilize?
I've realized that I have no clue what he could do to convince me. But I'm assuming he would know, since he is God.
Fossils fossilize because they realize if will make them famous. They're like martyrs. Sheesh chump, everyone knows THAT!
How many lives of animals and plants were lived and ended in some 3.5 billion years, Dump? Any estimate you'd like to make? Now why aren't there more fossils showing this huge loss of life? Your friendly scientists already answered this for you, because its a major argument against evolution, so go ahead and google it Dump.
RandomGuy is here. Now, I will get actually debatable, intelligently thought out answers. Props to RG, regardless of whether he insults me or whatever.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
