CDZ Questions About Evolution

[S.J.]

Still waiting to hear someone identify the "common ancestor".

Aegyptopithecus - Ape-Monkey Ancestor? - Online Biology Dictionary

So, this is what we evolved from?

 

[S.J.]

I'll answer comprehensively the questions you asked if you agree to do the same for the two I asked in your "Questions about Creationism" thread. How about that? Deal?

Yeah, how about that? I answered your questions yesterday and even reminded you in the creation thread. I see that instead of honoring your word you've opted for engaging in the ad hom fest with your two buddies (who can't answer them either). Thanks for exposing your lack of knowledge and credibility on this topic. I never thought you had any to begin with.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'll answer comprehensively the questions you asked if you agree to do the same for the two I asked in your "Questions about Creationism" thread. How about that? Deal?

Yeah, how about that? I answered your questions yesterday and even reminded you in the creation thread. I see that instead of honoring your word you've opted for engaging in the ad hom fest with your two buddies (who can't answer them either). Thanks for exposing your lack of knowledge and credibility on this topic. I never thought you had any to begin with.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question I asked. You'll recall that I didn't ask what you said or think, but that is what you replied with.

 

[S.J.]

I'll answer comprehensively the questions you asked if you agree to do the same for the two I asked in your "Questions about Creationism" thread. How about that? Deal?

Yeah, how about that? I answered your questions yesterday and even reminded you in the creation thread. I see that instead of honoring your word you've opted for engaging in the ad hom fest with your two buddies (who can't answer them either). Thanks for exposing your lack of knowledge and credibility on this topic. I never thought you had any to begin with.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question I asked. You'll recall that I didn't ask what you said or think, but that is what you replied with.

In other words, you didn't like my answers, therefore you don't have to honor your commitment. Fine, just don't pretend to be serious about wanting to have an honest discussion.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'll answer comprehensively the questions you asked if you agree to do the same for the two I asked in your "Questions about Creationism" thread. How about that? Deal?

Yeah, how about that? I answered your questions yesterday and even reminded you in the creation thread. I see that instead of honoring your word you've opted for engaging in the ad hom fest with your two buddies (who can't answer them either). Thanks for exposing your lack of knowledge and credibility on this topic. I never thought you had any to begin with.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question I asked. You'll recall that I didn't ask what you said or think, but that is what you replied with.

In other words, you didn't like my answers, therefore you don't have to honor your commitment. Fine, just don't pretend to be serious about wanting to have an honest discussion.

Another doge and another feeble attempt at painting the other party as the one that did so. I have no idea why you even started this in the CDZ - you have not engaged in anything approaching honest discussion this entire time.

 

[S.J.]

I'll answer comprehensively the questions you asked if you agree to do the same for the two I asked in your "Questions about Creationism" thread. How about that? Deal?

Yeah, how about that? I answered your questions yesterday and even reminded you in the creation thread. I see that instead of honoring your word you've opted for engaging in the ad hom fest with your two buddies (who can't answer them either). Thanks for exposing your lack of knowledge and credibility on this topic. I never thought you had any to begin with.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question I asked. You'll recall that I didn't ask what you said or think, but that is what you replied with.

In other words, you didn't like my answers, therefore you don't have to honor your commitment. Fine, just don't pretend to be serious about wanting to have an honest discussion.

Another doge and another feeble attempt at painting the other party as the one that did so. I have no idea why you even started this in the CDZ - you have not engaged in anything approaching honest discussion this entire time.

The purpose of this thread is for you and others who subscribe to the theory of evolution to answer questions regarding your theory. You have a lot of nerve saying I'm dodging anything, when you haven't answered one question. The only thing you've done is antagonize those asking the questions. This is all you guys ever do. You either know your theory is BS or you don't understand it enough to discuss it. Otherwise you would be happy to answer any question proposed.

 

[Kalki]

Both of the two standard narratives in this society about man's origins, are boring, quite frankly. Read, 'The Lemurian Scrolls' to learn a less boring narrative.

Intelligent Design is the only rational explanation, as a premise, but this does not need to be applied to the Torah or Darwin, just the basic principle and concept of intelligent design. It is absurd that life appeared by accident.

Then read the out-of-America theories in German Dziebel's work. The DNA studies have shown that the Americas had more genetic diversity than Africa.

Personally, I find the 'Lemurian Scrolls' more interesting, and I subscribe to polygenism in that way, rather than these boring theories of out-of-somewhere.

No one was present in those days. Therefore, no one has experiental knowledge of this, so we have to rely on inference (very weak epistemologically) and intuitions.

 

[320 Years of History]

... It is absurd that life appeared by accident.

...

I thought that too until I read a paper that demonstrated the mathematical plausibility of a whole universe being created entirely out of nothing and for no apparent reason. Now I'm wondering how long it'll be before someone figures out how to confirm whether our universe is one that was so created and then acts on that methodology.

 

[Kalki]

... It is absurd that life appeared by accident.

...

I thought that too until I read a paper that demonstrated the mathematical plausibility of a whole universe being created entirely out of nothing and for no apparent reason. Now I'm wondering how long it'll be before someone figures out how to confirm whether our universe is one that was so created and then acts on that methodology.

No thanks. It is irrational that something can come from nothing. Read, 'The Big Bang Never Happened' by Eric Lerner. It presents alternative thinking that will shed light on the falsity of the standard paradigm.

 

[toxicmedia]

Evolution is not a theory. It is observable changes/adaptations/mutations in species over time. Nobody disputes that reality.

If we want to debate a theory on the subject, might I suggest debating "Natural Selection", which is actually a theory.

Why the word games? There are no issues with a generic meaning of "evolution" even if it is described as "observable changes/adaptations/mutations in species over time." Neither is there any controversy over "natural selection" which is inherently implied within "evolution."

Everyone else understands that the two substantive issues regarding this subject are how life started on this planet and how different species developed from it. If you are unable or unwilling to address these issues, please try another forum.
observable changes/adaptations/mutations in species over time

How life started on this planet is not an evolution question.

This thread is titled "questions about evolution".....have the goal posts been moved?

 

[Kalki]

Lemurian Scrolls

 

[FA_Q2]

... It is absurd that life appeared by accident.

...

I thought that too until I read a paper that demonstrated the mathematical plausibility of a whole universe being created entirely out of nothing and for no apparent reason. Now I'm wondering how long it'll be before someone figures out how to confirm whether our universe is one that was so created and then acts on that methodology.

Look into the computer model interpretation of quantum physics. I don't like the explanation much myself because it seems to me that it is trying to explain away observed phenomena by mostly ignoring that it actually happens but it is an interesting take and quite frankly leans on the idea of a creator IMHO though the physicists are not going to state that (a creator being a matter of faith and not science).

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We're all familiar with the question "If we evolved from apes, why are the apes still here?". The answer I've always heard is that evolution is not a replacement, but an enhancement. The apes didn't disappear, they just branched off.

My question is: Why are none of the lower forms of man still in existence? The apes that we supposedly evolved from are still around but the more recent ancestors are not. If they were an enhancement of the ape, why did at least some of them not survive?

Evolution DOESNT SAY we evolved from Apes. It says we SHARED A COMMON ANCESTOR. Try running that over and over and over through your mind until the meaning of those words makes sense, and then you'll understand why this post of yours I am quoting TOTALLY exposes that you havent even BEGUN to study the subject, so WHY PLAY? Because: politics, and an o.c.d. for "argument." Waste of time.

An obvious attempt to poison the well when you have no answer.

Does not change the fact that we did not evolve from apes. That is an incorrect assumption on your part.

"Fact"?

Please post proof then. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Both of the two standard narratives in this society about man's origins, are boring, quite frankly. Read, 'The Lemurian Scrolls' to learn a less boring narrative.

Intelligent Design is the only rational explanation, as a premise, but this does not need to be applied to the Torah or Darwin, just the basic principle and concept of intelligent design. It is absurd that life appeared by accident.

Then read the out-of-America theories in German Dziebel's work. The DNA studies have shown that the Americas had more genetic diversity than Africa.

Personally, I find the 'Lemurian Scrolls' more interesting, and I subscribe to polygenism in that way, rather than these boring theories of out-of-somewhere.

No one was present in those days. Therefore, no one has experiental knowledge of this, so we have to rely on inference (very weak epistemologically) and intuitions.

Is there some theory that I haven't heard of that states "life appeared by accident"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We're all familiar with the question "If we evolved from apes, why are the apes still here?". The answer I've always heard is that evolution is not a replacement, but an enhancement. The apes didn't disappear, they just branched off.

My question is: Why are none of the lower forms of man still in existence? The apes that we supposedly evolved from are still around but the more recent ancestors are not. If they were an enhancement of the ape, why did at least some of them not survive?

Humans did not evolve in a vacuum. Nor are they the only species to have evolved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk