Evolution is False and Impossible

[Autodidact]

i don't think that god exists, i know he exists thats why i believe in him.

i'm claiming that humans and potatos came from the same ancestors because they have similarities with each other just like apes and humans do.

And you're right. They're just not as closely related.

 

[Autodidact]

exactly my point, well for another thread anyway. and just because we are related to chimps that does not make us apes or descendants of one. right?

Yes actually, it does.

 

[Gharib]

I hate to dignify it with a response, but, esalem, have you ever noticed that people are more like apes than we are like potatoes? Just askin'.

yeah i have noticed that, just like cats are more like dogs than they are humans. so are cats and dogs somehow, you know what?

 

[Autodidact]

you really are loosing me with these kind of statements.



no i have never heard of them until now, what's their story?

So as with most creationists, you don't feel that your utter ignorance of the subject is any barrier to being more correct about than the entire science of Biology?

 

[Autodidact]

is that why it is still called a theory? because there is no strong evidence to support it?

you guessed wrong i think.

Because you don't know what a theory is. And frankly I can't bring myself to explain it for the thousandth time to another creationist whose arrogance leads him to trumpet his ignorance as a virtue.

 

[Gharib]

So as with most creationists, you don't feel that your utter ignorance of the subject is any barrier to being more correct about than the entire science of Biology?

now you lost me?

those dinosaurs are not the earlies bird ancestor by any chance are they?

i just wrote something about that in another thread not long ago.

 

[Autodidact]

yeah i have noticed that, just like cats are more like dogs than they are humans. so are cats and dogs somehow, you know what?

Yes. btw, would you like to learn what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) actually says? Because it's obvious that you literally don't know even the first thing about it.

 

[Gharib]

i have a great statement from someone who i think you admire, but give me some time to find it and i will post it.

 

[Autodidact]

why is it stupid? is it not true?

Sorry, I shouldn't say stupid, just ignorant. Your ignorance is so profound that I can't address your questions without first at least informing you about what ToE says. Are you interested in learning? I'm sure painted wolf will be happy to help us.

 

[Gharib]

Yes. btw, would you like to learn what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) actually says? Because it's obvious that you literally don't know even the first thing about it.

nah, not really. i do know about it, but my way of expression is kind of lousy and bad, so thats what makes you think that.

 

[painted wolf]

you really are loosing me with these kind of statements.

It's basic biology. All complex living things are united by their cellular structure... we are all eukaryotic organisms as opposed to bacteria who are prokaryotic.
The first big division between the multicellular organisms was between plants and Opisthokonts (animals and fungi) (yes that means you are more closely related to a mushroom than a potato)

no i have never heard of them until now, what's their story?

They are the ancestors of the birds. Many of them are so bird like that it's hard to tell them apart. Wings, feathers, bird like behavior... the line between what is a dinosaur and what is a bird is very very fuzzy.
For example:
Archaeopteryx... widely known as "the first bird"

Microraptor... a gliding dinosaur closely related to both Velociraptor and Archy...

wa:do

 

[Gharib]

Sorry, I shouldn't say stupid, just ignorant. Your ignorance is so profound that I can't address your questions without first at least informing you about what ToE says. Are you interested in learning? I'm sure painted wolf will be happy to help us.

i've tried that a few times already remember, it just doesnt work. i had a math teacher once who used to say does it click together or not. and i think the click just isn't there.

 

[Gharib]

It's basic biology. All complex living things are united by their cellular structure... we are all eukaryotic organisms as opposed to bacteria who are prokaryotic.
The first big division between the multicellular organisms was between plants and Opisthokonts (animals and fungi) (yes that means you are more closely related to a mushroom than a potato)


They are the ancestors of the birds. Many of them are so bird like that it's hard to tell them apart. Wings, feathers, bird like behavior... the line between what is a dinosaur and what is a bird is very very fuzzy.
For example:
Archaeopteryx... widely known as "the first bird"

Microraptor... a gliding dinosaur closely related to both Velociraptor and Archy...

wa:do

yeah i thought you were reffering to this.

go to this link for 5 minutes read it and then come post your reply here ok

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/quranic-debates/79891-quran-free-errors-127.html

 

[Breathe]

Archaeopteryx... widely known as "the first bird"

The reconstructed image reminds me of a RaptorTurkey..

I've heard that more scientists are coming to the belief that many dinosaurs had feathers (of some kind) - though I haven't checked up on this for a while. This makes the the line you mentioned a helluvalot more blurred

I'm also coming to the belief that most creationists don't quite understand the ToE much, and that most aren't aware of things such as what ploidies (is that the correct plural? looks weird to me!) are. I'm not certain why so many creationists take creationism as extremely important.

 

[Jose Fly]

eselam,

Have you studied evolutionary biology? If so, how? What scholarly books on evolutionary biology have you read? What scientific journals do you read frequently? What conferences or symposia have you attended? What college-level courses on evolutionary biology have you taken?

 

[painted wolf]

sure thing...

in 1995 Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou discovered a new bird fossil that they named Confuciusornis. this bird was almost the same age as Archaeopteryx (around 140 million years old), but it did not have any teeth in it's mouth. in addition, it's beak and feathers shared the same features as toay's birds. having the same skeleton structure of modern birds, this bird also had claws on it's wings just like Archaeopteryx. the special structure called the "pygostyle" was present in this bird species that supported the tail feathers. in short, this bird, which was the same age as the Archaeopteryx (considered to be the oldest ancestor of all the birds and accepted as a semi reptile), looked very much like a modern bird. this fact invalidated all the evolutionist theses holding Archaeopteryx to be the primitive ancestor of all birds.

source: "The Evolution Deceit" by Harun Yahya.

Unfortunately he gets a few things wrong.
Confuciusornis is not that close to Archy in age... it's a lot younger. 124 mya vs. archy at 150 mya. (not 140mya).
Confuciusornis does have a beak... but it's not entirely like a modern birds beak... indeed the early "true birds" still had teeth at the time. Icthyornis and Hesperornis are examples of this.
(this isn't a problem for evolution at all, since the loss of teeth happened several times in the bird/dinosaur lineage... it's a common thing.)

Confuciusornis is the first bird to have a pygostyle... this is a trait that it's group passed down through the bird liniage ever after.

Confuciusornis is actually the perfect bridge between Archy and modern birds. It supports evolution not disproves it.

Here you have a bird, a little more advanced than Archy... younger than Archy.... older than modern birds and not yet as advanced as modern birds either.
You can see them becoming more bird like over time... the tail is shrinking, the feet are becoming better at grabbing branches, the arms are getting better at flapping flight...

I'm sorry but once again Harun Yahya is mistaken.

wa:do

 

[Breathe]

Kinda ruins Jurassic Park when you know they've got the dinosaur's appearances wrong.. or is it just me?

 

[painted wolf]

Kinda ruins Jurassic Park when you know they've got the dinosaur's appearances wrong.. or is it just me?

It's worse when they make shows that should have known better but went "jurassic park" anyway... *cough- walking with dinosaurs- cough*

Who knows... the next "Jurassic Park" may get it right. Though, I'm sure they will make my head hurt in other ways.

wa:do

 

[Breathe]

It's worse when they make shows that should have known better but went "jurassic park" anyway... *cough- walking with dinosaurs- cough*

Who knows... the next "Jurassic Park" may get it right. Though, I'm sure they will make my head hurt in other ways.

wa:do

I quite liked Walking with Dinosaurs.

You mean like "One Million Years BC"? I watched that the other day. Fantastic. One million years ago, humans were running around with dinosaurs as their predators and living in caves! And there were many blondes.

 

[painted wolf]

I quite liked Walking with Dinosaurs

I like it too... but there are bits that make my head hurt.

I can forgive things like "one million years BC"... it's pure escapism and fluffy fun. I'm sure I'll love it as much as I do "Caveman" with Ringo Star.

Double standards I know... but what can I say.

wa:do