Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Goddamn, are you full of shit;Laws don't change. Theories change with every new discovery, like the discovery of fossils that had working compound eyes, long before they should have according to "theory". So they invent a new theory, and decide that maybe, somehow, eye evolution was put on the fast track by randomness and chance. Here is what you believe happens accidentally:
When an eye begins to develop, even in the simplest of living things, the genetic code < (programed instructions) responsible for the eye, programs the body to start growing 2 million nerve endings from the eyes that move through the flesh toward the brain. And another 2 million from the brain moving through the flesh toward the eyes. These optic nerves must then find and match up with it's correct mate for the eye to function. That is design, not a crap shoot. The fact that the eye has the ability to transmit to the brain over 1 and 1/2 million messages simultaneously, at 300 miles an hour is just the icing on the cake. The working eye is complex at it's core. Nothing random or simple about it. It is a work of art.
Psalm 139:14
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
FactFactHere dumbass:
It is mathematically impossible for a living cell to form randomly, no matter how much you want to believe it did. There is zero randomness in DNA.
- Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”
- Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
- Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”
- Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
Creatures have evolved
Creatures adapt to their environment. They do not morph into other creatures. Monkeys continue to be monkeys. Man continues to be man.
Populations of species continue to adapt to their ever-changing environment until those populations are unrecognizable as the same species. There is no arbitrary line at which adaptation, or evolution, stops.
Different populations of species of monkeys continue to adapt until they are no longer be categorizable as the same species of monkeys. Eventually so much time passes that we would not, if we were still around to observe the populations, recognize the species of monkeys as monkeys at all but as an entirely new species, even a new genus. After hundreds of millions or billions of years, perhaps even a new phylum.
If that were the case, there would be no more monkeys, they would all be men now. .
No- this is where you just expose your ignorance regarding the theory of evolution.
Monkeys never become men.
That is like you saying that your grandfather became you.
Monkeys and Humans have a common ancestor far back in our family tree- and monkeys became monkeys and humans became humans.
e
It is mathematically impossible for a living cell to form randomly, no matter how much you want to believe it did. There is zero randomness in DNA.
According to who?
One of your own. Richard Dawkins.
Here is his calculation for just 1 of 4 strands of a hemoglobin molecule forming randomly. It is 1 in 10 to the 190th power.
Now weigh this: that is one with 190 zero's behind it. (A trillion has 12 zeros). And even at those odds it only works if they are intelligently and mechanically isolated and in close proximity. Now calculate the odds of all 4 strands getting lucky to the 190th degree all at once. In primordial sludge. It just didn't happen.
Again- according to whom?
You provide no citation- you mention Richard Dawkins with no link.
And none of this has to do with evolution.
The theory of evolution does not include how life was created. The theory of evolution explains how life on earth is now.
And the theory of evolution is the scientific theory that best matches the evidence we have- and I will point out- you have presented no compelling alternative- other than 'na aaa'
The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins
In that case how do you explain a modern birds mouth? They evolved into jaws and teeth, then devolved in to a beak?
Nothing 'devolves'- organisms 'evolve'
A beak is perfect for birds- much lighter weight than our heavy jaws.
Now- what is your competing and compelling theory that explains life on earth?
Psalm 139:14
............ I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
Goddamn, are you full of shit;Laws don't change. Theories change with every new discovery, like the discovery of fossils that had working compound eyes, long before they should have according to "theory". So they invent a new theory, and decide that maybe, somehow, eye evolution was put on the fast track by randomness and chance. Here is what you believe happens accidentally:
When an eye begins to develop, even in the simplest of living things, the genetic code < (programed instructions) responsible for the eye, programs the body to start growing 2 million nerve endings from the eyes that move through the flesh toward the brain. And another 2 million from the brain moving through the flesh toward the eyes. These optic nerves must then find and match up with it's correct mate for the eye to function. That is design, not a crap shoot. The fact that the eye has the ability to transmit to the brain over 1 and 1/2 million messages simultaneously, at 300 miles an hour is just the icing on the cake. The working eye is complex at it's core. Nothing random or simple about it. It is a work of art.
Psalm 139:14
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
The Poor Design of the Human Eye
The vast majority of people will suffer significant loss of visual function in their lifetimes, and for many people, it starts even before puberty. I got glasses after my first eye exam when I was in the second grade. Who knows how long I had actually needed them? My vision isn’t just a little blurry; it’s terrible. My lenses are -4.25 diopters, which means my vision is somewhere around 20/400. Had I been born before, say, 1600, I would probably have gone through life unable to do anything that required me to see further than arm’s length. In pre-history, I would have been worthless as a hunter. Or a gatherer, for that matter.
Compare this to the excellent vision of most birds, especially birds of prey, such as eagles and condors. Their visual acuity at great distances puts even the best human eyes to shame. Many birds can see a broader range of wavelengths than we can also, including ultraviolet light. In fact, migrating birds detect north and south poles with their eyes. It’s not clear if they are consciously aware of this perception, but it seems likely to me that they are, considering this information is conveyed by the same nerves that relay vision. This would mean that some birds can actually see the earth’s magnetic field.
Many birds also have an additional translucent eyelid that allows them to look directly into the sun, at length, without damaging their retinas.
The superiority of the bird eye shows that whatever designed the human eye, be it nature or a deity, is capable of producing eyes that are much better than the human eye. The question of why nature didn’t provide humans with better eyes is easily answered by evolutionary theory: it wasn’t strongly selected for. Alternatively, why an intelligent designer would deny his favorite creatures the excellent vision that he provided lowly birds is quite a mystery.
No it was not. It was taught as the true evolutionary progress to Modern Man. You are referring to the new improved truth.
And while evolution has us ever upwardly mobile, you now have another problem. According to science you are now devolving. Pretty soon you are all going to be monkeys again.
No wonder why you refuse evolutionary biology, because you have no knowledge of it....
And your personal attacks reveal you know even less....
If you count the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes necessary to create life, the probability of their discovering one another by random shuffling or chance is less than 1 in 10 to the 400000th degree. A number science considers an impossibility. DNA is a design not an accident.
DNA self corrects? Does it have a consensus first?Who ever claimed life is simple?DNA is a fact. It is complex from the beginning. It has codes. Extremely complex codes. Complex is the opposite of simple. DNA is a how and why that removes theory. Even the little we understand about DNA proves difficult to the evolutionist. The word simple cannot be used to describe DNA. Evolution goes from simple to complex. DNA does not. In fact back in the day, DNA was even more complex than it is now.
DNA is genetic code which provides the building blocks of how we were formed and from where
What we know for a fact is that life evolved. There were no complex life forms when life was created. Man did not ride dinosaurs. The gradual evolution of life is a fact
How were those blocks built?
Trial and error, filling a void
What you can't refute is that there were no complex creatures when life was created. We can see through geologic evidence how life evolved and when
That is PROOF of evolution
Not even close. DNA is programed to self correct. There is nothing in DNA that suggests trial and error.
The building blocks of life are amino acids. The proteins needed to create a living cell have hundreds of thin tiny strands, (covered with a variety of amino acids), one millionth the size of a human hair. Amino acids have side groups of atoms. If one atom goes to the wrong side of the thread, life for that cell is impossible. Evolution wants you to believe that randomness and chance are reliable enough to get it right every time.
Concerning your chart, did you know those crazy archeologists dug up perfectly working compound eyes from the Cambrian period? Not thought to exist or be possible at that early stage.
Chiral selection on inorganic crystalline surfaces : Abstract : Nature MaterialsActually it is from a source that quoted Fred Hoyle, that I read in the nineties, The Signature of God. I highly recommend it. You'll find the quote on page 124. But you googling for knowledge is good too.
You may want to also google right handed and left handed proteins, and the odds of amino acids lining up solely on the left side which is necessary for life, (all none life atoms are 50% right handed, and 50% left handed). It is also out of the realm of scientific possibility for them all to line up on the left. I know the math, but there no substitute for elevating one's own awareness, so get back to me when you find the equation, and we'll discuss the lack of probability it posses.
As far as gaining knowledge, do it by whatever means available.
Yes, let us look at Darwin's take on the eye. Without cherry picking a couple of paragraphs that he wrote. Let us look at all of what he wrote on that subject;Goddamn, are you full of shit;Laws don't change. Theories change with every new discovery, like the discovery of fossils that had working compound eyes, long before they should have according to "theory". So they invent a new theory, and decide that maybe, somehow, eye evolution was put on the fast track by randomness and chance. Here is what you believe happens accidentally:
When an eye begins to develop, even in the simplest of living things, the genetic code < (programed instructions) responsible for the eye, programs the body to start growing 2 million nerve endings from the eyes that move through the flesh toward the brain. And another 2 million from the brain moving through the flesh toward the eyes. These optic nerves must then find and match up with it's correct mate for the eye to function. That is design, not a crap shoot. The fact that the eye has the ability to transmit to the brain over 1 and 1/2 million messages simultaneously, at 300 miles an hour is just the icing on the cake. The working eye is complex at it's core. Nothing random or simple about it. It is a work of art.
Psalm 139:14
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
The Poor Design of the Human Eye
The vast majority of people will suffer significant loss of visual function in their lifetimes, and for many people, it starts even before puberty. I got glasses after my first eye exam when I was in the second grade. Who knows how long I had actually needed them? My vision isn’t just a little blurry; it’s terrible. My lenses are -4.25 diopters, which means my vision is somewhere around 20/400. Had I been born before, say, 1600, I would probably have gone through life unable to do anything that required me to see further than arm’s length. In pre-history, I would have been worthless as a hunter. Or a gatherer, for that matter.
Compare this to the excellent vision of most birds, especially birds of prey, such as eagles and condors. Their visual acuity at great distances puts even the best human eyes to shame. Many birds can see a broader range of wavelengths than we can also, including ultraviolet light. In fact, migrating birds detect north and south poles with their eyes. It’s not clear if they are consciously aware of this perception, but it seems likely to me that they are, considering this information is conveyed by the same nerves that relay vision. This would mean that some birds can actually see the earth’s magnetic field.
Many birds also have an additional translucent eyelid that allows them to look directly into the sun, at length, without damaging their retinas.
The superiority of the bird eye shows that whatever designed the human eye, be it nature or a deity, is capable of producing eyes that are much better than the human eye. The question of why nature didn’t provide humans with better eyes is easily answered by evolutionary theory: it wasn’t strongly selected for. Alternatively, why an intelligent designer would deny his favorite creatures the excellent vision that he provided lowly birds is quite a mystery.
Then let's capitulate to Darwin's take on the eye:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
Here he is trying to make the absurd not so absurd and insuperable:
“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
Insuperable:
adjective
adjective: insuperable
(of a difficulty or obstacle) impossible to overcome. insurmountable.
In his imagining random sight is absurd. Mine too.
For the design to work 2 million nerve endings need to know that their job is to travel through matter and find their exact mate. That is not random. That is programed code. You just happen to believe that it randomly occurred. I do not.
FactFactFfs.
Here dumbass:
It is mathematically impossible for a living cell to form randomly, no matter how much you want to believe it did. There is zero randomness in DNA.
- Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”
- Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
- Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”
- Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
Creatures have evolved
Creatures adapt to their environment. They do not morph into other creatures. Monkeys continue to be monkeys. Man continues to be man.
Populations of species continue to adapt to their ever-changing environment until those populations are unrecognizable as the same species. There is no arbitrary line at which adaptation, or evolution, stops.
Different populations of species of monkeys continue to adapt until they are no longer be categorizable as the same species of monkeys. Eventually so much time passes that we would not, if we were still around to observe the populations, recognize the species of monkeys as monkeys at all but as an entirely new species, even a new genus. After hundreds of millions or billions of years, perhaps even a new phylum.
If that were the case, there would be no more monkeys, they would all be men now. Monkey DNA continues to be monkey DNA. Human DNA continues to be human. If it takes millions of years to morph from monkey to man, we would literally be walking on the millions of transitional skeletons of monkeymen. But because DNA is self correcting, it conflicts will your view that DNA makes a mistake and then for millions of years never corrects and indeed makes the same mistake without fail < never making another mistake or reverting to it's original program, until something with a whole new DNA program emerges.
One celled amoebas have always had complex DNA. If they were the first signs of life, then either their DNA has never made a mistake, or it did and then corrected, as it is designed<(programed by someone) to do because single celled amoebas continue after millions and millions and millions of years to be single celled amoebas.
Ffs.
e
It is mathematically impossible for a living cell to form randomly, no matter how much you want to believe it did. There is zero randomness in DNA.
According to who?
One of your own. Richard Dawkins.
Here is his calculation for just 1 of 4 strands of a hemoglobin molecule forming randomly. It is 1 in 10 to the 190th power.
Now weigh this: that is one with 190 zero's behind it. (A trillion has 12 zeros). And even at those odds it only works if they are intelligently and mechanically isolated and in close proximity. Now calculate the odds of all 4 strands getting lucky to the 190th degree all at once. In primordial sludge. It just didn't happen.
Again- according to whom?
You provide no citation- you mention Richard Dawkins with no link.
And none of this has to do with evolution.
The theory of evolution does not include how life was created. The theory of evolution explains how life on earth is now.
And the theory of evolution is the scientific theory that best matches the evidence we have- and I will point out- you have presented no compelling alternative- other than 'na aaa'
The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins
In that case how do you explain a modern birds mouth? They evolved into jaws and teeth, then devolved in to a beak?
FactFact
Creatures have evolved
Creatures adapt to their environment. They do not morph into other creatures. Monkeys continue to be monkeys. Man continues to be man.
Populations of species continue to adapt to their ever-changing environment until those populations are unrecognizable as the same species. There is no arbitrary line at which adaptation, or evolution, stops.
Different populations of species of monkeys continue to adapt until they are no longer be categorizable as the same species of monkeys. Eventually so much time passes that we would not, if we were still around to observe the populations, recognize the species of monkeys as monkeys at all but as an entirely new species, even a new genus. After hundreds of millions or billions of years, perhaps even a new phylum.
If that were the case, there would be no more monkeys, they would all be men now. .
No- this is where you just expose your ignorance regarding the theory of evolution.
Monkeys never become men.
That is like you saying that your grandfather became you.
Monkeys and Humans have a common ancestor far back in our family tree- and monkeys became monkeys and humans became humans.
And then quit evolving? What stopped this inexorable force of DNA mistakes? Here is another problem for you, and whomever suggested trial and error. If an error sends a species on a different track, one more "error" and it is now on a completely different track than the one the original error was directing it to. No species could form. Thesee constant mistakes you think DNA codes make
According to who?
One of your own. Richard Dawkins.
Here is his calculation for just 1 of 4 strands of a hemoglobin molecule forming randomly. It is 1 in 10 to the 190th power.
Now weigh this: that is one with 190 zero's behind it. (A trillion has 12 zeros). And even at those odds it only works if they are intelligently and mechanically isolated and in close proximity. Now calculate the odds of all 4 strands getting lucky to the 190th degree all at once. In primordial sludge. It just didn't happen.
Again- according to whom?
You provide no citation- you mention Richard Dawkins with no link.
And none of this has to do with evolution.
The theory of evolution does not include how life was created. The theory of evolution explains how life on earth is now.
And the theory of evolution is the scientific theory that best matches the evidence we have- and I will point out- you have presented no compelling alternative- other than 'na aaa'
The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins
In that case how do you explain a modern birds mouth? They evolved into jaws and teeth, then devolved in to a beak?
Nothing 'devolves'- organisms 'evolve'
A beak is perfect for birds- much lighter weight than our heavy jaws.
Now- what is your competing and compelling theory that explains life on earth?
Evolution birds evolved with teeth and jaws. Heavy teeth, then backtracked to beak. Apparently.
And some scientists believe that humans are devolving now.
So I guess we are just going to overlook the statistics regarding the probability of your theory.
Let's talk sex. Trial and error cannot apply if the mutated new species is to survive. Here's why. Let's say over millions of years, a single celled amoeba has finally made enough mistakes to become a female lion. You then have to believe that somewhere millions of years ago, some other amoeba started making the exact, same mistakes, yet different mistakes and the result was a male lion. And they met on Match.com, and thank pond scum, those mutated parts seem to fit one another perfectly, and they continued the species.
It's either all or nothing with reproductive parts, If they take time to evolve, the species is done. Cells that are imperfect tend to die rather than thrive.
Same with teeth. For one to be able to chew, not only did the amoeba have to finally create teeth through trial and error, or mutation of the genes it possessed when it had no teeth, but the upper jaw had to know what the bottom jaw was doing to prepare it's upper counterpart. Otherwise there would just be teeth all over the place. To be able to close your mouth or chew is the result of a DNA code, not randomness. So are sexual organs.
As for my belief:
Psalm 139:14
............ I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
We might learn more because doubters keep asking question about points they arent comfortable with.Like a butterfly?Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.
Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.
So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?
He thinks apes evolved from single cell organisms, overnight...
Actually, why on one hand does he mock the idea a single cell organism turned into an ape overnight but supports the idea God put humans and all the other animals on earth in a week?
Funny thing is when they accept evolution they'll just assume thats how God did it. In other words creationism will become just another allegory in the bible. The bible is full of them. Even Jesus is an allegory
Sometimes I feel lucky that creationists don't "believe" in evolution.
Otherwise it would be impossible to study this field as a science and try to bust and improve certain aspects of it...
Goddamn, are you full of shit;Laws don't change. Theories change with every new discovery, like the discovery of fossils that had working compound eyes, long before they should have according to "theory". So they invent a new theory, and decide that maybe, somehow, eye evolution was put on the fast track by randomness and chance. Here is what you believe happens accidentally:
When an eye begins to develop, even in the simplest of living things, the genetic code < (programed instructions) responsible for the eye, programs the body to start growing 2 million nerve endings from the eyes that move through the flesh toward the brain. And another 2 million from the brain moving through the flesh toward the eyes. These optic nerves must then find and match up with it's correct mate for the eye to function. That is design, not a crap shoot. The fact that the eye has the ability to transmit to the brain over 1 and 1/2 million messages simultaneously, at 300 miles an hour is just the icing on the cake. The working eye is complex at it's core. Nothing random or simple about it. It is a work of art.
Psalm 139:14
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
The Poor Design of the Human Eye
The vast majority of people will suffer significant loss of visual function in their lifetimes, and for many people, it starts even before puberty. I got glasses after my first eye exam when I was in the second grade. Who knows how long I had actually needed them? My vision isn’t just a little blurry; it’s terrible. My lenses are -4.25 diopters, which means my vision is somewhere around 20/400. Had I been born before, say, 1600, I would probably have gone through life unable to do anything that required me to see further than arm’s length. In pre-history, I would have been worthless as a hunter. Or a gatherer, for that matter.
Compare this to the excellent vision of most birds, especially birds of prey, such as eagles and condors. Their visual acuity at great distances puts even the best human eyes to shame. Many birds can see a broader range of wavelengths than we can also, including ultraviolet light. In fact, migrating birds detect north and south poles with their eyes. It’s not clear if they are consciously aware of this perception, but it seems likely to me that they are, considering this information is conveyed by the same nerves that relay vision. This would mean that some birds can actually see the earth’s magnetic field.
Many birds also have an additional translucent eyelid that allows them to look directly into the sun, at length, without damaging their retinas.
The superiority of the bird eye shows that whatever designed the human eye, be it nature or a deity, is capable of producing eyes that are much better than the human eye. The question of why nature didn’t provide humans with better eyes is easily answered by evolutionary theory: it wasn’t strongly selected for. Alternatively, why an intelligent designer would deny his favorite creatures the excellent vision that he provided lowly birds is quite a mystery.
Then let's capitulate to Darwin's take on the eye:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
Here he is trying to make the absurd not so absurd and insuperable:
“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
Insuperable:
adjective
adjective: insuperable
(of a difficulty or obstacle) impossible to overcome. insurmountable.
In his imagining random sight is absurd. Mine too.
For the design to work 2 million nerve endings need to know that their job is to travel through matter and find their exact mate. That is not random. That is programed code. You just happen to believe that it randomly occurred. I do not.
Isn't it all, science the universe the human body the seemingly perfect world that all seems to be made just for us amazing? Lucky us seriously.Laws don't change. Theories change with every new discovery, like the discovery of fossils that had working compound eyes, long before they should have according to "theory". So they invent a new theory, and decide that maybe, somehow, eye evolution was put on the fast track by randomness and chance. Here is what you believe happens accidentally:
When an eye begins to develop, even in the simplest of living things, the genetic code < (programed instructions) responsible for the eye, programs the body to start growing 2 million nerve endings from the eyes that move through the flesh toward the brain. And another 2 million from the brain moving through the flesh toward the eyes. These optic nerves must then find and match up with it's correct mate for the eye to function. That is design, not a crap shoot. The fact that the eye has the ability to transmit to the brain over 1 and 1/2 million messages simultaneously, at 300 miles an hour is just the icing on the cake. The working eye is complex at it's core. Nothing random or simple about it. It is a work of art.
Psalm 139:14
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
We might learn more because doubters keep asking question about points they arent comfortable with.Like a butterfly?Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.
Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.
So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?
He thinks apes evolved from single cell organisms, overnight...
Actually, why on one hand does he mock the idea a single cell organism turned into an ape overnight but supports the idea God put humans and all the other animals on earth in a week?
Funny thing is when they accept evolution they'll just assume thats how God did it. In other words creationism will become just another allegory in the bible. The bible is full of them. Even Jesus is an allegory
Sometimes I feel lucky that creationists don't "believe" in evolution.
Otherwise it would be impossible to study this field as a science and try to bust and improve certain aspects of it...
But sometimes the facts aren't evidence persay they're questions that damand a logical answer. Like, if creation is a myth or best guess by our ancients, and no God poofed us into existence, what came first a baby human or adult? This is why evolution makes sense. There was no first human. Modern humans evolved from a previous species. Before apes we were small hairy rodent type species and before that a reptile and before that a fish and before that a creature that didn't need a mother.
If not then a God must have poofed us here like the holy books say. Out of dust.
Do you think you were made of dust?
The top 10 signs that you don’t understand evolution at allOther than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.
Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.
So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?
What do most people who deny evolution have in common?Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.
Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.
So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?
FactFact
Creatures have evolved
Creatures adapt to their environment. They do not morph into other creatures. Monkeys continue to be monkeys. Man continues to be man.
Populations of species continue to adapt to their ever-changing environment until those populations are unrecognizable as the same species. There is no arbitrary line at which adaptation, or evolution, stops.
Different populations of species of monkeys continue to adapt until they are no longer be categorizable as the same species of monkeys. Eventually so much time passes that we would not, if we were still around to observe the populations, recognize the species of monkeys as monkeys at all but as an entirely new species, even a new genus. After hundreds of millions or billions of years, perhaps even a new phylum.
If that were the case, there would be no more monkeys, they would all be men now. .
No- this is where you just expose your ignorance regarding the theory of evolution.
Monkeys never become men.
That is like you saying that your grandfather became you.
Monkeys and Humans have a common ancestor far back in our family tree- and monkeys became monkeys and humans became humans.
And then quit evolving? What stopped this inexorable force of DNA mistakes? E]
