I dont beleive in evolution because the idea of of organism attaining the attributes of other organism nearly completely diffrent in species just doesnt make sense to me and even if we evolved from micro organisms how they arent evolving anymore if fish learned how to breayh why arent they doing it anymore?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
there is NO evidence AGAINST Evolution...
- Thread starter RedJamaX
- Start date
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I sincerely hope you're a Poe, but it's genuinely very hard to tell.
I know what you mean.
If evolution is true there should only be humans or evolution is stupid. I think its a mix of thinking evolution is supposed to be intelligent, it isn't.
On that note. If sharks are so highly evolved how come they are so mean?
Then you need to study evolution in more depth.
They are. Antibiotic resistance is due to evolution.
You might want to familiarize yourself with the lungfish, electric eel and mudskipper.
Last edited:
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
... just as Poe's Law states. (In this case, the spelling and lack of punctuation smack of someone trying just that bit too hard to look ignorant; the choice of username could cut either way.)
So if all humans were wiped out would fish crawl out of the sea again? Also instead of commenting on me lets stick to the debate
Evidence Against Evolution:
Apparent Design:All life appears to be designed, and evolutionists have failed to adequately explain why. Adaptation to environmental changes, mutations, and natural selection has not validated macroevolution.*
Origin of life:*Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation of life. Sir Fred Hoyle and Charles Wickramasinghe stated in their book,*Evolution from Space,*that they estimated the probability of forming a single enzyme or protein at random, in a rich ocean of amino acids, was no more than one in 10 to the 20th power. Next, they calculated the likelihood of forming all of the 2000+ enzymes used in the life forms of earth. This probability was calculated at one in 10 to the 40,000th power. They popularized the following cliché: belief in the chemical evolution of the first cell from lifeless chemicals is equivalent to believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747.*Development of life and the tree of life:Evolutionists believe all life developed from the original life that Sir Fred Hoyle said had no chance of occurring. Nevertheless, evolutionists have postulated an evolutionary tree of life showing how the various life forms developed. If their postulate were correct, many transitional life forms would have existed between the ancestor and the descendants time. Now, after 150 years of searching for fossils since Darwin, zero transitional fossils have been found of the millions of fossils collected. Confirming this lack of evidence is Gould's oft-quoted words: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. . .I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism. I wish only to point out that it was never seen in the rocks"
I read this some time ago
Apparent Design:All life appears to be designed, and evolutionists have failed to adequately explain why. Adaptation to environmental changes, mutations, and natural selection has not validated macroevolution.*
Origin of life:*Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation of life. Sir Fred Hoyle and Charles Wickramasinghe stated in their book,*Evolution from Space,*that they estimated the probability of forming a single enzyme or protein at random, in a rich ocean of amino acids, was no more than one in 10 to the 20th power. Next, they calculated the likelihood of forming all of the 2000+ enzymes used in the life forms of earth. This probability was calculated at one in 10 to the 40,000th power. They popularized the following cliché: belief in the chemical evolution of the first cell from lifeless chemicals is equivalent to believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747.*Development of life and the tree of life:Evolutionists believe all life developed from the original life that Sir Fred Hoyle said had no chance of occurring. Nevertheless, evolutionists have postulated an evolutionary tree of life showing how the various life forms developed. If their postulate were correct, many transitional life forms would have existed between the ancestor and the descendants time. Now, after 150 years of searching for fossils since Darwin, zero transitional fossils have been found of the millions of fossils collected. Confirming this lack of evidence is Gould's oft-quoted words: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. . .I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism. I wish only to point out that it was never seen in the rocks"
I read this some time ago
outhouse
Atheistically
and history.
outhouse
Atheistically
If you knew what you were talking about, you would understand your many errors.
Evolution is fact.
IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
Since its formation, the Earth its geology and its environments has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.
So what your trying to say is that the organism on earth continue to evolve then your accepting the fact that a new race of people or even a new species could evolve out of the ones we have currently on earth and also if you beleive that evolution happened and continues to happen then why havnt extinct organisms which did not die due to their inability to adapt in the new environment, evovled back onto the earth except your saying that it took millions of years for them to evolve and it will take the same time then you accepting that we would see them again in the future.
The theory of creation makes more sense because everytgjng needs to be done by someone. Without a driver a car wont drive itself. Without a building team a house wont make itself. So the fact that a superior being created us on earth is not that hard to belive when your ready to a look at it from a diffrent persepective.i agree that at the time of creation humans were rather diffrent because the world changes everyday and humans have been made with the ability to adapt to our environment.
The theory of creation makes more sense because everytgjng needs to be done by someone. Without a driver a car wont drive itself. Without a building team a house wont make itself. So the fact that a superior being created us on earth is not that hard to belive when your ready to a look at it from a diffrent persepective.i agree that at the time of creation humans were rather diffrent because the world changes everyday and humans have been made with the ability to adapt to our environment.
Why do you think the absence of humans in particular should cause this? Humans don't even occupy the same niche that a land-transitional fish would. There is something that you haven't taken into consideration. Before fish evolved into amphibians, the dry land would have had many niches which were not filled with animal life. Today, those niches are already filled so any fish that begin to evolve to become land-dwellers would face competition. This is not something they would have faced all those hundreds of millions of years ago.
By posting in this thread, your comments have become a part of the debate.
Natural selection, sexual selection, mutation, etc. explain how organisms have come to appear designed quite well. The less designed an organism appears, the worse they would function and would have a decreased chance of reproducing. Evolution therefore naturally works to improve the function of organisms because that is what results in better reproductive ability.
That's abiogenesis, not evolution.
Transitional fossils are known. Look up the evolutionary history of cetaceans. You should also look up punctuated equilibrium.
outhouse
Atheistically
This is just not understood by you, due to your ignorance in biology.
Dont feel to bad, im pretty ignorant myself.
Certain species will not evolve at all because their environment has not changed. And yet there are species that have evolved from these species because their environment changed.
I have cyanobacteria that goes back over 3 billion years. Bceause some species can split off from another species, does not make ALL of the orignal species has to evolve.
To the ignorant it makes sense.
To think some mythology snapped his fingers like "I dream of Genie" and life happened as written to me is simply moronic to think some people possess that little education. When we have a very clear trial of the facts regarding evolution.
The only reason people do not accept evolution is due to wilful ignorance, driven by theistic bias.
Every credible university in the hwole world teaches evolution as fact, because it is.
Creation is outlawed from poisoning childrens minds in science class.
Sorry bud, this debate has been over for a very long time. The only question left, is how long before certain theist wake up.
Even creationists accept speciation.
The theory of evolution has never said that an extinct lineage of organisms will re-evolve over time. Something similar might evolve to fill the niche of an extinct species, but it will not be the same species as the one which it replaced. This is due to the random nature of mutations: no lineage will have the same kinds of mutations as another lineage.
ScuzManiac
Active Member
I don't think anyone said it couldn't?
Why cant you agree that some thing higher created you are so ignorant and litle minded that you think something evolved into you. Assume your a theist lets beleive theres God and try to see the reason l.
how was the world made then
(Can we stop using abusive language and stick to the argument.thanks man)
how was the world made then
(Can we stop using abusive language and stick to the argument.thanks man)
outhouse
Atheistically
Because that is mythology, not reality.
I was a creationist for the vast majority of my life, so I've already seen the world from your point of view.
As I said before, no two lineages of organisms are going to experience the same pattern of mutations. That's because when and where mutations occur in DNA is random. You won't get the same thing twice.
You're calling for an end to abusive language yet you are calling people "little-minded"? The idea of a higher being creating the Universe is not incompatible with evolution.
Your never going to agree no matter how much I try to persuade you but I can only ask to do me one favour. Go to youtube and watch a video of zakir naik vs an atheist.... you probably wont but I had try
im sorry for calling you little minded. I have anger issues(sorry). Goodbye it was a fun debate. GOD is real nothjng can create itself the universe cant create itself from nothkng either.
im sorry for calling you little minded. I have anger issues(sorry). Goodbye it was a fun debate. GOD is real nothjng can create itself the universe cant create itself from nothkng either.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Before you go, can you at least acknowledge that you came to this forum thinking that you could refute evolution, despite the fact that you have very little (if any) actual knowledge of how evolution works? Do you now understand why your objections are flawed?