Edited by Coatrackofsatan, 21 March 2007 - 01:30 AM.
Who the hell would believe in evolution???
Started by
Guest_MichahSimmons
, Jan 09 2006 08:34 PM
1136 replies to this topic
#326
Coatrackofsatan
-
- Member
-
- 171 posts
Serpent
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 21 March 2007 - 01:28 AM
I don't really like CatholicismNo offense to youbut ive known a few that have turned out to be Neo-Nazisand I didnt say Evolution was exclusive to religioni included Intelligent Designthe OTHER opposition to evolutionbut i feel bad for that guy with that theory
#327
Guest_joedaddy109
Guest_joedaddy109
-
- Guest
Posted 22 March 2007 - 09:29 PM
laws of physicsmatter cannot be created or destroyedtherefore, evolution is not possiblethe only solution is a God that created matter, because no laws bind him downif you don't agree now, you will in 120 years
#328
Guest_Jabu
Guest_Jabu
-
- Guest
Posted 22 March 2007 - 09:46 PM
I hope you are aware of the fact that the theory of a great worldwide flood provides one of the best explanations for the fossil record we have today.. if you wish a more in depth answer I'll post the research findingsThe most important reason for the sparse nature of the fossil record is that fossils are extraordinarily rare, and many fossils are destroyed by erosion or other natural processes long before anyone even knows about them. Not only that, but a more or less precise set of circumstances are needed for a fossil to form in the first place, which is why most fossils are of sea creatures, which are more easily buried under sediment and possibly preserved.Also, what happens if the presence of fossils is approached in a different manner? Rather than using the fossil record to support the theory of evolution, how does one explain the presence of fossils, which take quite a long time to form?
#329
jan-man
-
- Member
-
- 50 posts
Hatchling
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 22 March 2007 - 11:12 PM
This is a complete non sequitur. Evolution has nothing to do with either creation or destruction of matter. It is solely about how populations of organisms undergo genetic change over time.laws of physicsmatter cannot be created or destroyedtherefore, evolution is not possiblethe only solution is a God that created matter, because no laws bind him downif you don't agree now, you will in 120 years
#330
Guest_joedaddy109
Guest_joedaddy109
-
- Guest
Posted 23 March 2007 - 01:43 AM
change? yesbut according to the second law of thermodynamics, the change is worse, not bettersurvival of the fittest is NOT change. big differenceI'm not talking about the change of organisms...but rather the origin of matterwhere did matter come from? only one answer- Godwhich rules out evolution entirely. God did not use any type of evolutiontherefore, by the fact that matter cannot be created, evolution is proven impossible, as it hinges on the fact that humans come from nothing
#331
Guest_York
Guest_York
-
- Guest
Posted 24 March 2007 - 03:37 AM
Oddly enough, given the fact that every single one of your premises is baseless, unprovable or simply wrong... your argument is still logically nonsensical. Where did matter come from? There is certainly more than one theory about that; not all of them require the existence of a god (though all such theories can accomodate a god, so, in all probability, you might be right).God did not use any type of evolution... that's a blind assumption. If God created all matter in the universe, and the process of evolution can be demonstrated to be true, then God must 'use' evolution. And, essentially, evolution CAN be demonstrated... except for the fact that no one has yet observed a genesis of genetic information, only loss or change. That's the point on which evolution as a theory of creation really hinges; otherwise it's just an explanation of the gradual 'degeneration' of life. And last... the theory of evolution makes no assumptions or predictions about HOW or WHY matter exists, it only assumes that matter DOES exist. The question of how matter and the universe came into existence is irrelevant to whether evolution does or does not actually occur.change? yesbut according to the second law of thermodynamics, the change is worse, not bettersurvival of the fittest is NOT change. big differenceI'm not talking about the change of organisms...but rather the origin of matterwhere did matter come from? only one answer- Godwhich rules out evolution entirely. God did not use any type of evolutiontherefore, by the fact that matter cannot be created, evolution is proven impossible, as it hinges on the fact that humans come from nothing
#332
Guest_joedaddy109
Guest_joedaddy109
-
- Guest
Posted 25 March 2007 - 10:10 AM
neither creation nor evolution can be proven...both require faithbut seeing as we cannot observe "evolution" as it is described as the origin of man, it seems improbable. granted, we cannot see God either...at least not in this life. Any person that believes the bible can rule out any form of evolution in creation immeadiately...as God made everything in 7 days. Some people say they were not 7 literal days, but they were. I'll explain further if there is any debate on that topic. I would like to hear a theory about where matter came from...because I have not heard of one that doesn't involve GodScientific laws cannot be broken...so the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed seems reason enough to believe that there is a God who is outside those lawsdo you know of any theories of the origin of matter?I know I won't change anyone's mind on this topic...either side can be argued too well. Many can argue against creation better than I can argue for it, but I do enjoy hearing various theories.as I've said earlier...we'll find out who's right in 120 years...though it'll probably be sooner than that
#333
Guest_Bobalot
Guest_Bobalot
-
- Guest
Posted 25 March 2007 - 11:39 AM
"neither creation nor evolution can be proven...both require faith"Wrong. Simply look underneath a microscope, we can literally watch small organisms evolve, for example scientists have watched viruses evolve and gain resistance to antibiotics. The only reason we cannot "see" macro-evolution is because it takes millions of years to happen. The evidence and support for evolution is overwhelming. Fossils, DNA, etc. Creationism has none of this. There has never been one scientific paper that has been written and peer-reviewed that has supported creationism. Why is this? Because it relies on the supernatural. It cannot be tested like evolution can. It is simply not science. You know this and are simply being dishonest, like most other creationists.but seeing as we cannot observe "evolution" as it is described as the origin of man, it seems improbable. granted, we cannot see God either...at least not in this life.Wrong again. Look above for micro-evolution. And a point to make because some fool said that evolution can't explain the beginnings of life. It's an amazing argument because evolution has never claimed to do this. That is actually actually another branch of science. Evolutionary theory has never tried to explain the origin of life. This type of argument is typical of the dishonesty that come from creationists.I would like to hear a theory about where matter came from...because I have not heard of one that doesn't involve GodThat has nothing to do with evolution. More outright dishonesty.Scientific laws cannot be broken...so the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed seems reason enough to believe that there is a God who is outside those lawsI was holding back after I read your first clueless arguments, but I simply can't anymore. Have you lost your ability to think? I reread this sentence numerous times and I was blown away by how incredibly stupid it was. The fact that something cannot happen is proof there is a god. Hey the fact that I cannot balance a jumbo jet on my nose MUST PROVE there must be a god.In all seriousness, I assume you that you trying to say how did all this matter come about? Well there are several different scientific theories for that. But by simply saying "ah duh, GOD DID IT" is just weak. Where would humanity be if we had that answer for all our questions, we wouldn't have advanced past the stone ages. It is easy escape valve for clueless creationists, because it something nobody can disprove. What if I said a giant walking talking potato with down-syndrome created the universe and lives outside all rules?Most people would call that bull****. But nobody can disprove therefore it must be a viable scientific theory according to joe here. (which is in fact the opposite of how things work, the person making the claim should offer proof as its usually impossible to prove a negative, but that hasn't stopped dishonest creationists before)I in fact believe in some sort of God, but I don't call it science which is on par with evolution, because it is not. One is science backed up by considerable evidence and support and the other is faith. Two separate things, apples and oranges despite what many dishonest creationists try and make you believe.
#334
Guest_joedaddy109
Guest_joedaddy109
-
- Guest
Posted 25 March 2007 - 10:06 PM
hmmm...how unfortunate. I was hoping for a reasonable debate...but when anger is introduced, it reduces the validity of anything in the argumentmatter exists. how did it get there?you have never balanced a jumbo jet on your nose...so that comment was quite pointless.there are no fossils supporting evolution by the way...just the thought of an entire species change....an amphibian gaining feathers and becoming a bird or whatever the heck you guys believe...heh...it's just a jokeso I'm guessing you think the earth is millions of years old, eh?The moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of about 4 centimeters per year. Given this information, if the earth is indeed as old as evolutionists say it is, the moon was once part of the earth...."Evolutionary theory has never tried to explain the origin of life"...so what the heck does it attempt to explain? the evolution of mankind from...a pre-existing life form? you must first establish where that pre-existing life form came from. So the origin of matter...or at least the origin of that life form is part of evolutionCreation and evolution can not be proven, so I would like both to be removed from school textbooks. They are both theories...and science is based on factsIf evolution could in fact be proven, it would not be a theory anymore
#335
Guest_The Pirate Lord
Guest_The Pirate Lord
-
- Guest
Posted 26 March 2007 - 03:23 AM
Theories in science hardly ever move on to being laws, as this would require every possible factor to be tested. This doesn't mean that a theory is just some idea a guy had while sipping his morning cup of coffee.In cell theory, it states that all cells come from pre-existing cells. We can observe that cells do this, but because we can't test every possible cell ever to exist, we cannot call it a law. Do you think it should not be taught because of this?Evolution has an extremely large amount of proof to back it up, but it can never become a law due to the fact that we would need to test every organism ever to exist.If evolution could in fact be proven, it would not be a theory anymore
#336
Guest_Moneneko
Guest_Moneneko
-
- Guest
Posted 26 March 2007 - 03:26 AM
I believe strongly in evolution, hence why there are so many different breeds of the same animals. They were forced to evlove into something completly different in order to adapt to the area that they lived in. That and where else would humans have come from? We wern't here from the very beginning, and we had to have come from somewhere, like apes! ^^
#337
Guest_Bobalot
Guest_Bobalot
-
- Guest
Posted 26 March 2007 - 12:27 PM
You may say I'm getting angry because I am, your ignorance is unbelievable. Someone brought up in a 1st world country with access to education has no excuse for such stupidity. I specially get angry when people deliberately lie and misrepresent, which you are.matter exists. how did it get there?Are you illiterate? I posted this above, I will repeat it again and expand. Make sure you read it. We may not know fully where it does come from, there are several different ideas about this. That doesn't mean "IT WAS GOD" is the answer. All because we may not know something, it doesn't mean that we won't know in the future. If you think it was god, you will have to provide evidence for it. Stating that there aren't any other explanations is not enough. If we as a human race did this, we would still be a primitive society if we answered every unknown question with "IT WAS GOD". Here is an alternate history for you:Isaac Newton: "Er, gee, I wonder why things fall?"Someone like joedaddy109:"IT WAS GOD, There are no other ideas about why it is, therefore it must be god"Isaac Newton: "Gee, Thanks Joe, I was going to actually think about why things fall, but I won't now since it must be god"Result : Gravity isn't discovered until someone realises that Joe's logic is monumentally stupid, and thinks about it. there are no fossils supporting evolution by the way...just the thought of an entire species change....an amphibian gaining feathers and becoming a bird or whatever the heck you guys believe...heh...it's just a jokeYou are deliberately making things up. An amphibian does not simply gain feathers, as people have been trying to explain to you here but you have been too thick too understand(or i think, you simply don't want to understand). It is not a change over 1 generation, 10 generations, but thousands of generations. Every generation slowly changes to adapt to their environment and over time these many thousands of tiny changes results in a new species.If you are interested in how birds came about, here is a link. However, Since you lie constantly and misrepresent evolution, i doubt that you will actually read it in any depth. http://en.wikipedia....bird_connectionAs to your comment about fossils not supporting evolution, that too is simply a lie. Here is a link about fossils and evolution Fossils and EvolutionSince you will probably misrepresent to others whats on the site, I will post the conclusion paragraph.
Wrong once again. It's getting to be a habit.so I'm guessing you think the earth is millions of years old, eh?The moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of about 4 centimeters per year. Given this information, if the earth is indeed as old as evolutionists say it is, the moon was once part of the earth.Evolutionists don't claim this BECAUSE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. YOU ARE SIMPLY MAKING THINGS UP. You are however wrong, anyway. Geologists and Astronomists will easily be able to disprove this feeble claim. Yes, the moon is moving away from us at a rate of 3.8 centimetres a year at the moment, however that doesn't mean it has ALWAYS moved away at this rate. Rates of change in the natural world are rarely ever linear. This however doesn't prove that the age of the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old, which makes your argument rather pointless. What does the movements of the moon have to do with the age of the earth? Nothing. Just more loony creationist logic.Here is a website that deals with the age of the earth and always shows the flaws in common creationist arguments for those of you that are interested in not making things up. Age of Earth - Talk OriginsCreation and evolution can not be proven, so I would like both to be removed from school textbooks. They are both theories...and science is based on factsIf evolution could in fact be proven, it would not be a theory anymoreI noticed you ignored my earlier post about actually watching micro evolution happen. Simply ignoring evidence is another dishonest creationist tactic. Evolution is taught as a science because it has an enormous amount of corroborative evidence. Literally tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles, Fossils, DNA(Something else you ignored) etc. Creationism has none. Literally none.The Pirate Lord Hit it right on the head. Since you don't seem to know anything or do and are simply lying again, I will let you know that a theory in science is actually a huge thing. Gravity and Einstein's Theory of Relativity are also only "theories", I do notice however there is no rush to remove them from textbooks."Evolutionary theory has never tried to explain the origin of life"...so what the heck does it attempt to explain? the evolution of mankind from...a pre-existing life form? you must first establish where that pre-existing life form came from. So the origin of matter...or at least the origin of that life form is part of evolutionIt explains the Origin of Species, which is why Darwins book was called the... (Drumroll please) The Origin of Species(not life). Amazing isn't it.It explains how different species have come about. Here is an apt quote from galactic interactions that explains it well.The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.
Heres the Link for that blog.Moneneko: Actually believe it or not humans don't come from apes. We do however share a common ancestor making us like distant cousins, which is why we share a lot of similar DNA, bone structure and of course appearance.Evolution doesn’t say anything about how life came to be; it’s incomplete!Correct, evolution doesn’t say anything about how life started.Any more than our theories of gravity tell us how nuclear reactions work.Evolution isn’t about the original creation of life. It’s about how life forms change over time. It’s about how one species can arise from another. Where life comes from may well turn out to relate in interesting ways to the theory of evolution (just as people working on “theories of everything” how to show how gravity is related to nuclear reactions), but that’s just not what evolution is about. It’s no more a valid criticism of evolution to say it doesn’t explain the original beginning of life any more than it would be a valid criticism of an English dictionary to say that it fails to properly define enough Russian words.
Edited by Bobalot, 26 March 2007 - 01:18 PM.
#338
Huang Fei Hong
-
- Member
-
- 227 posts
Serpent
Reputation: 4
Neutral
Posted 27 March 2007 - 11:12 AM
For everyone who is posting against evolution I suggest you read page 19 and 20 of this discussion for the argument winning posts by me. For those of you against God completely and trying to discount the origin of matter from this discussion, I suggest you refer to here:http://www.dgemu.com...w...353&st=5010And the next page for an actual logical proof of God, also by me. You guys have yet to address or defeat any of my arguments.Sorry Bobalot. I may be on your side for evolution, but I burn you absolutely on the origin of matter.Again, I announce my still reigning victory over these debates. Have fun trying to come up with something else for me to tear apart 
Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 27 March 2007 - 04:25 PM.
Yet Another Guide To A Healthy PC (Windows) - FREE Cleaners, Security, Defraggers, & Other Free Software.
#339
Guest_PJulian
Guest_PJulian
-
- Guest
Posted 27 March 2007 - 04:24 PM
I actually believes in evolution....I think it sounds right
#340
Guest_Hatuke
Guest_Hatuke
-
- Guest
Posted 27 March 2007 - 06:08 PM
I belive in Evolution. Sure god did made us(Ok i still don't belive that one) but how do you explain we got more smarter, power "polite" etc etc?
#341
Guest_The condor hero
Guest_The condor hero
-
- Guest
Posted 06 June 2007 - 03:40 PM
Do not need to believe... It is proven that evolution existed... But not that kind in anime... (e.g. Digi-Spirit Evolution!, Digisoul Charge!, Hyper-Bio Evolution!)... 
But it is the kind of natural evolution... It is believed that Earth once only have those single-cell sinple organism.. But it is strough evolution when we get multi-cell complex organism like us, human being... 
But it is the kind of natural evolution... It is believed that Earth once only have those single-cell sinple organism.. But it is strough evolution when we get multi-cell complex organism like us, human being... Very detailed defination... Thank you for sharing...You may say I'm getting angry because I am, your ignorance is unbelievable. Someone brought up in a 1st world country with access to education has no excuse for such stupidity. I specially get angry when people deliberately lie and misrepresent, which you are.matter exists. how did it get there?Are you illiterate? I posted this above, I will repeat it again and expand. Make sure you read it. We may not know fully where it does come from, there are several different ideas about this. That doesn't mean "IT WAS GOD" is the answer. All because we may not know something, it doesn't mean that we won't know in the future. If you think it was god, you will have to provide evidence for it. Stating that there aren't any other explanations is not enough. If we as a human race did this, we would still be a primitive society if we answered every unknown question with "IT WAS GOD". Here is an alternate history for you:Isaac Newton: "Er, gee, I wonder why things fall?"Someone like joedaddy109:"IT WAS GOD, There are no other ideas about why it is, therefore it must be god"Isaac Newton: "Gee, Thanks Joe, I was going to actually think about why things fall, but I won't now since it must be god"Result : Gravity isn't discovered until someone realises that Joe's logic is monumentally stupid, and thinks about it. there are no fossils supporting evolution by the way...just the thought of an entire species change....an amphibian gaining feathers and becoming a bird or whatever the heck you guys believe...heh...it's just a jokeYou are deliberately making things up. An amphibian does not simply gain feathers, as people have been trying to explain to you here but you have been too thick too understand(or i think, you simply don't want to understand). It is not a change over 1 generation, 10 generations, but thousands of generations. Every generation slowly changes to adapt to their environment and over time these many thousands of tiny changes results in a new species.If you are interested in how birds came about, here is a link. However, Since you lie constantly and misrepresent evolution, i doubt that you will actually read it in any depth. http://en.wikipedia....bird_connectionAs to your comment about fossils not supporting evolution, that too is simply a lie. Here is a link about fossils and evolution Fossils and EvolutionSince you will probably misrepresent to others whats on the site, I will post the conclusion paragraph.Wrong once again. It's getting to be a habit.so I'm guessing you think the earth is millions of years old, eh?The moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of about 4 centimeters per year. Given this information, if the earth is indeed as old as evolutionists say it is, the moon was once part of the earth.Evolutionists don't claim this BECAUSE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. YOU ARE SIMPLY MAKING THINGS UP. You are however wrong, anyway. Geologists and Astronomists will easily be able to disprove this feeble claim. Yes, the moon is moving away from us at a rate of 3.8 centimetres a year at the moment, however that doesn't mean it has ALWAYS moved away at this rate. Rates of change in the natural world are rarely ever linear. This however doesn't prove that the age of the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old, which makes your argument rather pointless. What does the movements of the moon have to do with the age of the earth? Nothing. Just more loony creationist logic.Here is a website that deals with the age of the earth and always shows the flaws in common creationist arguments for those of you that are interested in not making things up. Age of Earth - Talk OriginsCreation and evolution can not be proven, so I would like both to be removed from school textbooks. They are both theories...and science is based on factsIf evolution could in fact be proven, it would not be a theory anymoreI noticed you ignored my earlier post about actually watching micro evolution happen. Simply ignoring evidence is another dishonest creationist tactic. Evolution is taught as a science because it has an enormous amount of corroborative evidence. Literally tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles, Fossils, DNA(Something else you ignored) etc. Creationism has none. Literally none.The Pirate Lord Hit it right on the head. Since you don't seem to know anything or do and are simply lying again, I will let you know that a theory in science is actually a huge thing. Gravity and Einstein's Theory of Relativity are also only "theories", I do notice however there is no rush to remove them from textbooks."Evolutionary theory has never tried to explain the origin of life"...so what the heck does it attempt to explain? the evolution of mankind from...a pre-existing life form? you must first establish where that pre-existing life form came from. So the origin of matter...or at least the origin of that life form is part of evolutionIt explains the Origin of Species, which is why Darwins book was called the... (Drumroll please) The Origin of Species(not life). Amazing isn't it.It explains how different species have come about. Here is an apt quote from galactic interactions that explains it well.Heres the Link for that blog.Moneneko: Actually believe it or not humans don't come from apes. We do however share a common ancestor making us like distant cousins, which is why we share a lot of similar DNA, bone structure and of course appearance.
#342
Guest_havocfett
Guest_havocfett
-
- Guest
Posted 06 June 2007 - 06:56 PM
thingie aout evolution if there was no god life could not have been made, life begets life basic law of science, so if there was no god how did organisms came aout, i personally don't have a complete opinion but lean towards partial evolution, god created life forms, doing it so they would evolve in a certain way creating us
#343
Guest_fghtita
Guest_fghtita
-
- Guest
Posted 07 June 2007 - 07:57 AM
Hm... let's try a thought-experiment here, then. If we discard all theories of evolution and natural selection and general Darwinism... what, then, would be a BETTER theory?And I mean outside of religious theories like creationism or Intelligent Design. A scientific theory that explains the creation of the species without the religious angle.Because is it really very likely that the species we have today just kinda "popped up" at some random point in time? The Earth's environment has changed drastically in the last 70 million years. There's a reason why dinosaurs are extinct, and there's a reason why some snakes are suited for living in water, while others live in deserts and still others are suited for living in trees.Essentially, all scientific evidence points to evolution as being pretty much the only likely theory. You can even see evolution if you go back just 300 years in human history. People used to be a LOT smaller. Ever been to Versailles? If you look at the beds for the nobility in old European castles, you'll notice that even though they were incredibly rich and very fond of lavish conditions, their beds were still too small for a person like me - who's 1 meter and 80 centimeters tall - to even lie in.
Edited by fghtita, 07 June 2007 - 07:57 AM.
#344
Guest_Zanpaku
Guest_Zanpaku
-
- Guest
Posted 07 June 2007 - 09:14 AM
Let's face it guys-23 pages later, and we're back to the same old circle. It's not like any NEW arguments on either side are appearing, and it's not like anyone can DEFINITELY prove one or the other wrong. But a small reflection:The only reason a lot of people accept Evoluotion THEORY is because there is NO BETTER EXPLANATION so far. Creationism: sure, okay, someone put all of the creatues of the world there. That's great. Except where does the fossils come in? And how does the "survival of the fittest" attributes noted in many species today needed for? Evoloutionists: as previously mentioned on page...5? With Sparkyblue(I think) there ARE a lot of holes in evolution. There are a lot of evolutionary steps we havne't found/proved, and probably never will owing to the rarity of fossils in itself. We simply don't KNOW if things "popped up" outta nowhere. Not to mention the fa ct that once again, carbon dating is inaccurate, and there's no proof otherwise.But on a side note, something I always wonder why few Religous peoples refuse to consider: isn't it possible that some gods might have CREATED evolution after sticking everything on the planet? Just a thought.
#345
Guest_Xela267
Guest_Xela267
-
- Guest
Posted 07 June 2007 - 09:28 AM
I the hell would believe in it. No I'm not an atheist, you don't have to be one to believe in evolution.
#346
Guest_yamaha motorbikes rule
Guest_yamaha motorbikes rule
-
- Guest
Posted 13 June 2007 - 09:00 AM
Gotta agree with the second post (already agreed with evolution theory, my science teacher has me brainwashed 
).
).
#347
Guest_CracyFrank
Guest_CracyFrank
-
- Guest
Posted 23 August 2007 - 10:32 AM
I believe it because my teacher tell me that maybe after 1000 years the earth maybe going to be very hot & maybe 0.01% of the human will evolution and became a new human which have the skin that can fight against the temperature of the surrounding.My example is just ** MAYBE only ** to u all.
#348
Guest_spooz
Guest_spooz
-
- Guest
Posted 23 August 2007 - 10:37 AM
i believe in it you idiot, it more believable and that adam and eve rubbish
#349
Guest_monarchistknight
Guest_monarchistknight
-
- Guest
Posted 23 August 2007 - 11:01 AM
Sorry, but I'd have to say God isn't a fantasy, and that all that evolution stuff isn't true. I mean, the fossils and body structures could be similar in many ways, but I believe they're all differentOk, good point; I misstated my premise in the previous post... Allow me to revise. What I meant is that the difference in RATIO of fossils found of creatures already present and creatures long past TO those which could be percieved as "links" between the two sets is strikingly low, seeing as how the presence of the "finished" creatures should have taken up much less time than the development of those creatures. Simply put, if the evolutionist theory is correct, I believe that there should be much more evidence within the fossil record (unless there is some sort of overbearing archeological conspiracy to hide the truth of evolution going on, that is). To make my points more clear, I must state that I DO "believe", or as you justly put it, subscribe to the scientific findings and conclusions, of MICRO-evolution (evolution within the bounds of the species) but am opposed to that of MACRO-evolution (that which would require a dinosaur becoming a dog, or human)
#350
Guest_johnnymars
Guest_johnnymars
-
- Guest
Posted 23 August 2007 - 11:54 AM
the conditions required to fossils to form are specific and somewhat rare. so there is not a specific fossil record for the evolution of every creature.
