Reply With Quote
what exactly do you require as proof? video evidence?
the genetic and fossil records lead to the conclusion
98 pages and still no proof humans are here from two apes ing
what exactly do you require as proof? video evidence?
the genetic and fossil records lead to the conclusion
Proof? It's a theory. Why play dumb for 98 pages?
show us the fossils
they've been posted somewhere in these 97 pages. dig away
So is going to when you die, but its not in the school textbooks so why should Evolution be in a Science books shouldn't it be in the Science fiction section of the library
I call bull .
When you find a fossil record for demons from , I'll accept your ridiculous analogy.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4c9_1269368840
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bb2_1269370707
Evolutionists admit there are no transitional species in the fossil record.
Ro 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
While trillions of such fossils are found in the fossil record to prove micro evolution, that is small changes to the organism either via mechanisms of adaptation built into the genetic code of many creatures, or by the mutation and recombination of DNA More..proven to never produce more complex kinds of organisms, no fossils have ever been found to support the hypothesis of MACRO EVOLUTION or radical changes from one type of organism to another.
Archeoptrix, or the best example typically presented by evolutionists to support their theory, has long been accepted to be 100% bird by the majority of paleontologists, and has long been discredited as evidence of the missing links supporting macro evolution; not to mention that trillions of such examples should be found.
Financial support is provided by special interest groups to all ins utions involved in the evolution paradigm under the mandate of either finding or producing and manufacturing evidence to promote and support the Darwinian myth.
Such findings are then deceitfully presented as conforming to some proven scientific method when nothing could be further from the truth. The conclusions presented by the science of geology, archeology, paleontology, genetics, and physics supporting the MACRO evolutionary propaganda hoax are all equally preposterous.
Our ability to manufacture evidence supporting macro evolution is limited only by the "credulity" of our audience, one evolution evidence fabricator admits.
Well, Mr. Evolution Scientist, you have nothing to fear from your Liveleak audience. MANUFACTURE AWAY!!!!!!
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bb2_1...zZ0SS4W1KPe.99
that video you keep posting over and over
"this cannot be true. for mutations only damage the information of the DNA."
since mutations do not add new genetic information, it is impossible..."
"this cannot be true. for mutations only damage the information of the DNA."
since mutations do not add new genetic information, it is impossible..."
You just don't get it. I want to say your just misguided but after reading your replies over a 30 day period I have found your just stubborn and mentally not capable of learning.
i have only come to this position as a result of my capacity for learning
I guess all the sea creatures also had their origins and stages of evolution. I suppose we can trace all them back to the same....????
you're catching on
So we had the....BIG BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! which gave us earth and the oceans and.......what was it that the fish evolved from?
I found...(ok so where did we get this.....animal similiar to a sea squirt....come from?)
Notice the...may have....?
Fish may have evolved from an animal similar to a coral-like sea squirt, whose larvae resemble early fish in important ways. The first ancestors of fish may have kept the larval form into adulthood (as some sea squirts do today), although perhaps the reverse is the case. Vertebrates, among them the first fishes, originated about 530 million years ago during the Cambrian explosion, which saw the rise in organism diversity.[4]
Last edited by Avante; 12-03-2014 at 11:26 PM.
this thread is not about the big bang. the big bang and evolution are entirely different arguments.
evolution and theism are not at odds. if you want to have a discussion about god/no god/big bang, we can make a new thread for that. keep this thread to evolution, ok, small fry?
See where it says....AVANTE...? I'll talk about anything I feel like talking about, got it? If you don't like it you can leave....ok?
So we all came from fish, so the fish had to have come from something else also....right? So what was the very first living whatever that gave us the fish? And.....where did it come from?
We read stuff like...(ok so where did that jelly fish thing come from?)
Excellent question Leah. And that type of thought is exactly what we scientists do! Though we now think that land-based animals with backbones (“chordata”) originally came from fish who evolved the ability to walk on land. This may have led to amphibians and reptiles, which then led to us mammals (including monkeys).
So, scientists believe that fish evolved over a long period of time from things without true backbones or true bones at all in fact. Something along the lines of modern day eels called lancelets (“amphiouxus”). In order to swim forwards they needed something rigid for the muscles to pull against, which is why the backbone evolved, as those who could move forward were slightly better at catching food than those who couldn’t. Before lancelets, these were believed to come from something similar to modern day jellyfish, so not round.
So there you have it, complicated eh!? But it took sooooo long and there are still so many missing links in our knowledge that we might just find a different story soon!
Last edited by Avante; 12-03-2014 at 11:37 PM.
if you want to ramble about various topics, you have the avante in pink thread. this thread is called evolution, so it would make sense to keep the discussion to that. you routinely (and i mean ROUTINELY) try to combine the evolution discussion with the theism/atheism one. its simply wrong to do so
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...istory_of_lifeSo we all came from fish, so the fish had to have come from something else also....right? So what was the very first living whatever that gave us the fish?
Not sure what I did there, haha!!!!!!!
Dude, at what point does it hit you.....you don't tell me ....well? This is my thread I'll do whatever I want ......got it? Don't be telling me a damn thing....alright?
Tons of this out there...TONS!!!!!!!!!
What about the eye? Evolutionists cannot figure out how eyes evolved, or how creatures with one kind of eye could possibly have descended from creatures with another kind of eye. So to solve the problem, they just came up with a new name. They called it "convergent evolution," as though that would solve the problem of how it could possibly happen! But calling an impossibility "evolution," does not change it into a possibility. Similarities in such different creatures, that could not have descended from one another, continue to be a nagging puzzle to the evolutionists.At the same time the Darwinists had to live with the opposite problem, so they tried to solve it by classifying it as another type of "evolution!"
So we all started off as some sea glob, which evolved into this which evolved....before ever stepping a fin on dry land.
How did we ever get the human brain out of that process?
glob of goo...billions of years...a fish....fish takes off on land (I'll ignore the whale, shark, dolphin etc etc etc) so this fish evolved into bugs, flies, giraffes, pigs, chickens, beavers, rabbits, horses, cats, dogs, cows, bulls etc etc.......hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You cannot be this ing dumb.
When it finally got to us humans....
Watusi
Pygmy
Samoan
Filipino
Nigeria
Kenyan
Arabian
, how'd we get the sexes?
Glob of goo was two sexes?
There is no issue with the development of the eye. All eyes have the same basic functioning. As you could imagine, for early life in the sea, those animals who had any sort of visual tools (early eyes basically only saw light and dark) had a distinct advantage. They had an advantage in finding food source or avoiding potential danger. Those with eyes were more likely to live, reproduce, and pass on the traits. Among different species with eyes, the ones with "better" eyes which had slightly more function, were more successful. If you have read up, you could know about the "evolutionary arms race" during the Cambrian Explosion.
sexes came way before humans did.
as for how we came up with different races... look at different breeds of dogs that have developed over time. look at how Asian Elephants are completely distinguishable for African Elephants. That aspect of evolution is not tricky at all, even a simpleton like yourself should have understood that one.
Also, Filipino, Nigerians, Kenyans are just nationalities. Nations are man-made ideas
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
