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.
How about raWhat evidence of creation you they have other than the Bible?thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,Proof? Evidence? Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schoolsEvolutionists don't have any facts, they have evidence. There are no facts in science; that is there are no absolute truths. Some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible which creates a huge difference of opinion between many Christians and scientists.thats why they call it a religion based on faith
Evolutionists claim scientific evidence as authority and Creationists claim the Bible as the authority. The basis for creationists argument is a literal interpretation of the story of creation in the Bible. Some say that man was created by God from the earth in his image as stated in the Bible. Others claim that scientific evidence points to man evolving over a period of millions of years. A minority of Christians insist that the only valid interpretation of the Bible is a literal one (Gallup). The larger portion of Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but not always to be taken literally. Can the major tenets of the Bible exist without taking the Bible literally? If so, then the differences between Christians and evolutionists can be resolved.
but what if youre not christian or an evo???
and just want something that makes sense,,,
cause right now based on the evidence the christians make more sense than evo's
thats the faith part,,,
but I will say the evidence points towards a young earth and not a billion yr earth,,,
fact is right now we have no idea, and that most of the evo stuff is made up crazy talk,,,
Evolution is a discipline within biology which addresses the processes by which living and fossil organisms evolved, from the earliest emergence of life to the present. It does not address how life originated. I don't know of any discipline that deals strictly with the origin of life. Research has been done in biology and chemistry, and even astrobiology.Actually, I wasn't even addressing 007. However, I was presuming to rebut progressive hunter's claim aimed at Fort Fun: "you think we all came from a rock,,,"Actually,
Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[11] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[284] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[285] and the assembly of simple cells.
Since you brought it up, you should be able to explain highly energetic chemistry and answers questions on it. What observable evidence does it have? What is the self-replicating molecule? How do you know it was half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed. What is the last common ancestor? If I ask a person on the street, then would they know of it haha? Go on, explain your RNA[285] and how assembly of simple cells relates to creation of life. Remember, I said only life begats life. Not chemistry.
Actually, haha, your really naive questions are addressed in any college level biology / chemistry course, haha.
You obviously, haha, never had such classes, haha.
And, actually, I happen to have a degree in Chemistry and have a daughter who's an active biologist. But I'd still mainly rely on Google, even just to refresh my memory, perhaps even ask Seri or Alexa like practically everyone else does these days. Know what I'd never do? Pompously demand some stranger on a stupid political forum personally answer such questions. That would be really dumb and sadistic.
And, actually, since I clearly wasn't even talking to 007, why would he think I gave a rat's ass what he "said" about life begatting itself or what TF ever?
And, actually, Wikipedia is a damned fine, refreshingly unbiased source in general and only getting better with time. For finding great, quick answers to questions such as those asked by 007 in particular. The only reason to bother going to college anymore is to obtain degrees that unlock the higher income slots needed to keep pouring food on one's family or pay off student loans in this phony, stinking corporate rat race. Thank goodness I'm long retired!
wikipedia isnt biased MY ASS!!!!
and hate to break it to you but under evolution we all came from a primordial/prebiotic soup which is basically rock soup,,,
so yeah evo's think we came from a rock,,,
How about raWhat evidence of creation you they have other than the Bible?thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,
but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schoolsEvolutionists don't have any facts, they have evidence. There are no facts in science; that is there are no absolute truths. Some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible which creates a huge difference of opinion between many Christians and scientists.thats why they call it a religion based on faith
Evolutionists claim scientific evidence as authority and Creationists claim the Bible as the authority. The basis for creationists argument is a literal interpretation of the story of creation in the Bible. Some say that man was created by God from the earth in his image as stated in the Bible. Others claim that scientific evidence points to man evolving over a period of millions of years. A minority of Christians insist that the only valid interpretation of the Bible is a literal one (Gallup). The larger portion of Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but not always to be taken literally. Can the major tenets of the Bible exist without taking the Bible literally? If so, then the differences between Christians and evolutionists can be resolved.
but what if youre not christian or an evo???
and just want something that makes sense,,,
cause right now based on the evidence the christians make more sense than evo's
thats the faith part,,,
but I will say the evidence points towards a young earth and not a billion yr earth,,,
fact is right now we have no idea, and that most of the evo stuff is made up crazy talk,,,
Evolution is a discipline within biology which addresses the processes by which living and fossil organisms evolved, from the earliest emergence of life to the present. It does not address how life originated. I don't know of any discipline that deals strictly with the origin of life. Research has been done in biology and chemistry, and even astrobiology.Actually, I wasn't even addressing 007. However, I was presuming to rebut progressive hunter's claim aimed at Fort Fun: "you think we all came from a rock,,,"Actually,
Since you brought it up, you should be able to explain highly energetic chemistry and answers questions on it. What observable evidence does it have? What is the self-replicating molecule? How do you know it was half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed. What is the last common ancestor? If I ask a person on the street, then would they know of it haha? Go on, explain your RNA[285] and how assembly of simple cells relates to creation of life. Remember, I said only life begats life. Not chemistry.
Actually, haha, your really naive questions are addressed in any college level biology / chemistry course, haha.
You obviously, haha, never had such classes, haha.
And, actually, I happen to have a degree in Chemistry and have a daughter who's an active biologist. But I'd still mainly rely on Google, even just to refresh my memory, perhaps even ask Seri or Alexa like practically everyone else does these days. Know what I'd never do? Pompously demand some stranger on a stupid political forum personally answer such questions. That would be really dumb and sadistic.
And, actually, since I clearly wasn't even talking to 007, why would he think I gave a rat's ass what he "said" about life begatting itself or what TF ever?
And, actually, Wikipedia is a damned fine, refreshingly unbiased source in general and only getting better with time. For finding great, quick answers to questions such as those asked by 007 in particular. The only reason to bother going to college anymore is to obtain degrees that unlock the higher income slots needed to keep pouring food on one's family or pay off student loans in this phony, stinking corporate rat race. Thank goodness I'm long retired!
wikipedia isnt biased MY ASS!!!!
and hate to break it to you but under evolution we all came from a primordial/prebiotic soup which is basically rock soup,,,
so yeah evo's think we came from a rock,,,
when you cant refute the claim attack the messenger is what I always say,,,What is the Origin of this Leiwen? Not the physics professor from MIT I hope?
Humans belong to a species known as homo sapiens in the genus Homo. Possibly the term "less advanced humans" is referring to the Neanderthals, although we did not evolve from Neanderthals. They were very close to modern day humans except they had smaller brains. Genetically, they were close to humans but were assign a species of homo neanderthalensis. They became extent about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. Fossil of modern man and Neanderthals remains have been found in the same areas and dated during the same time period which have lead some people to believe there was cross breeding between the species which may have lead to extinction of the species. Other believe they were driven to extinction because they could not compete with modern man.I keep hearing this theory but have yet to understand what they mean by humans evolved from less advanced humans,,,did someone give birth to an advanced human???or did a new type of human just appear one day??? and that doesnt even get into what it was before it was human,,,I didn't say I believed we came from a rock. Origin of life is a scientific problem that has not been resolved. There are several theories but they lack enough evidence for wide spread acceptances.and thats why its a religion based on faith,,,You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.Proof? Evidence? Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
The evidence is we are here. We have not observed anything else besides life begats life. We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it. Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other. Shall I go on or are you too thick?
whats your excuse for believing we came from a rock???
We have good evidence of Homo sapien evolution within the Homo genus and homid family. Over 6000 fossil remains older that 10,000 years has been found. This has resulted resulted in more than 2500 pre-human classifications by reconstruction and DNA analysis. Also, radiometric dating reveals the ages range form 12,000 years to 3.2 million years.
There's strong evidence that we evolved from Homo erectus and a first cousin Homo ergaster. Beyond that it get's a bit murky. Whether we are talking about evolution or the history man, the further we go back, the less information is available.
and I dont believe any of the dating process's because they have no idea what the history of the item being tested is as to its exposure or if it went through a event that increased or decreased the rate of decay,,,
sorry but there is no evidence anything ever gave birth to any thing other than its kind,,what there is is speculation based on assumptions
Humans belong to a species known as homo sapiens in the genus Homo. Possibly the term "less advanced humans" is referring to the Neanderthals, although we did not evolve from Neanderthals. They were very close to modern day humans except they had smaller brains. Genetically, they were close to humans but were assign a species of homo neanderthalensis. They became extent about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. Fossil of modern man and Neanderthals remains have been found in the same areas and dated during the same time period which have lead some people to believe there was cross breeding between the species which may have lead to extension of the species. Other believe they were driven to extension because they could not compete with modern man.I keep hearing this theory but have yet to understand what they mean by humans evolved from less advanced humans,,,did someone give birth to an advanced human???or did a new type of human just appear one day??? and that doesnt even get into what it was before it was human,,,I didn't say I believed we came from a rock. Origin of life is a scientific problem that has not been resolved. There are several theories but they lack enough evidence for wide spread acceptances.and thats why its a religion based on faith,,,You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.The evidence is we are here. We have not observed anything else besides life begats life. We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it. Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other. Shall I go on or are you too thick?
whats your excuse for believing we came from a rock???
We have good evidence of Homo sapien evolution within the Homo genus and homid family. Over 6000 fossil remains older that 10,000 years has been found. This has resulted resulted in more than 2500 pre-human classifications by reconstruction and DNA analysis. Also, radiometric dating reveals the ages range form 12,000 years to 3.2 million years.
There's strong evidence that we evolved from Homo erectus and a first cousin Homo ergaster. Beyond that it get's a bit murky. Whether we are talking about evolution or the history man, the further we go back, the less information is available.
and I dont believe any of the dating process's because they have no idea what the history of the item being tested is as to its exposure or if it went through a event that increased or decreased the rate of decay,,,
sorry but there is no evidence anything ever gave birth to any thing other than its kind,,what there is is speculation based on assumptions
Homo sapiens were believed to have evolved from Homo erectus for most of the 20th century. However a discover in Africa around 1970 of a new species, Homo ergaster genetically between Homo erectus and Homo spaiens has lead to the acceptance that homo spaiens evolved from this new species, Homo ergaster.
Since most fossils we deal with in human evolution are between 40,000 to 3,000,000 years old. An accuracy of 1,000 years is 2.5% to .3%.my problems with all of the dating process's is that if you test 3 times you get 3 different dates that vary by thousands of yrs,,,that and the fact that the same people that created the tests made the rulers and they seem to have a rubber content to them,,,How about the potassium-40 dating of said fossils?dinosaurs died got buried and turned into fossils
OH and they have no way of telling the history and contamination/exposure of the item being tested
when you can prove those dates get back to me,,Since most fossils we deal with in human evolution are between 40,000 to 3,000,000 years old. An accuracy of 1,000 years is 2.5% to .3%.my problems with all of the dating process's is that if you test 3 times you get 3 different dates that vary by thousands of yrs,,,that and the fact that the same people that created the tests made the rulers and they seem to have a rubber content to them,,,How about the potassium-40 dating of said fossils?dinosaurs died got buried and turned into fossils
OH and they have no way of telling the history and contamination/exposure of the item being tested
There are two methods used to date fossils:
Relative dating is often sufficient. Knowing a fossil is 40,000 years old or 41,000 is often of no importance. However Absolute dating can be used and is usually more accurate.
- Relative Dating in which we already know the date of rocks or other fossils, or earth strata.
- Absolute dating, radiometric dating which can be much more accurate. This method uses radioactive minerals that occur in rocks and fossils almost like a geological clock.
Yes, I know a great world wide hoax involving hundreds of thousands of scientists, over 6,000 human remains, skeletal reconstructions, and thousands of DNA studies and that's just in the field of human evolution.Humans belong to a species known as homo sapiens in the genus Homo. Possibly the term "less advanced humans" is referring to the Neanderthals, although we did not evolve from Neanderthals. They were very close to modern day humans except they had smaller brains. Genetically, they were close to humans but were assign a species of homo neanderthalensis. They became extent about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. Fossil of modern man and Neanderthals remains have been found in the same areas and dated during the same time period which have lead some people to believe there was cross breeding between the species which may have lead to extension of the species. Other believe they were driven to extension because they could not compete with modern man.I keep hearing this theory but have yet to understand what they mean by humans evolved from less advanced humans,,,did someone give birth to an advanced human???or did a new type of human just appear one day??? and that doesnt even get into what it was before it was human,,,I didn't say I believed we came from a rock. Origin of life is a scientific problem that has not been resolved. There are several theories but they lack enough evidence for wide spread acceptances.and thats why its a religion based on faith,,,You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.
whats your excuse for believing we came from a rock???
We have good evidence of Homo sapien evolution within the Homo genus and homid family. Over 6000 fossil remains older that 10,000 years has been found. This has resulted resulted in more than 2500 pre-human classifications by reconstruction and DNA analysis. Also, radiometric dating reveals the ages range form 12,000 years to 3.2 million years.
There's strong evidence that we evolved from Homo erectus and a first cousin Homo ergaster. Beyond that it get's a bit murky. Whether we are talking about evolution or the history man, the further we go back, the less information is available.
and I dont believe any of the dating process's because they have no idea what the history of the item being tested is as to its exposure or if it went through a event that increased or decreased the rate of decay,,,
sorry but there is no evidence anything ever gave birth to any thing other than its kind,,what there is is speculation based on assumptions
Homo sapiens were believed to have evolved from Homo erectus for most of the 20th century. However a discover in Africa around 1970 of a new species, Homo ergaster genetically between Homo erectus and Homo spaiens has lead to the acceptance that homo spaiens evolved from this new species, Homo ergaster.
like I said,,,
a lot of speculation based on assumptions and still not a single bit of evidence,,,
and are you talking about lucy in the 70's???,,cause that one is just made up bullshit,,,
Is there really a need for so many different English versions of the Bible? The answer is, of course, no, there is no need for 50 different English versions of the Bible. This is especially true considering that there are hundreds of languages into which the entire Bible has not yet been translated. At the same time, there is nothing wrong with there being multiple versions of the Bible in a language. In fact, multiple versions of the Bible can actually be an aid in understanding the message of the Bible.
Even though the word dinosaur is not used, Scripture does indeed talk about them. The words that we see are behemoth, dragon, Leviathan, and serpent, which can be a number of dinosaurs.
Many people don't realize that paleontology (the study of past geological ages based primarily on the study of fossils) is a relatively new science. In fact, the concept of "dinosaurs" only surfaced in its present form less than 180 years ago. Prior to that, anyone who found a large fossilized bone assumed it came from an elephant, dragon or giant. It wasn't until 1841 that English scientist Richard Owens suggested that the group of "newly discovered" animals be called "dinosaurs" (meaning, "terrible lizards"). Therefore, we shouldn't expect to see dinosaurs in the Bible, {yada, yada, and just you never mind that} Today's Bible translations use the following terms instead: "great whales" (KJV), "the great creatures of the sea" (NIV), "the great sea monsters" (NASB), and "great sea creatures" (NLT, NKJV) {nor that} the latest Bible translations use the words elephant, hippo or crocodile instead of Behemoth and Leviathan,
How is it out of context?why do you edit his comment and make it out of context???So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?life begats life
There is much debate and research about the origin of dinosaurs. Since we don’t have complete records of every animal alive at any one period, we can never definitely say that this or that was the “first”: we can only say with confidence that a certain animal is the earliest example we have found so far, of a specific evolutionary clade.
Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces in some parts of the puzzle fit perfect. In other parts of the puzzle the pieces seem to fit but latter we find they don't. And still other parts of the puzzle we hardly have any pieces at all. Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory, constantly changing as new evidence is found. Some day we may have enough pieces of the puzzle that we can say with a high degree of confidence as to where the dinosaurs came from. But even then we still can't regard it as absolute truth because in science the only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth.
Let's ask james bond what he thinks. Did he mean that "life begats life" or did he mean something else entirely?you not only edited it,,, but pulled it out of stream so others cant even see the context he was talking about,,,How is it out of context?why do you edit his comment and make it out of context???So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?life begats life
very dishonest if you ask me,, but standard procedure for evo's,,,
carry on,,
Humans belong to a species known as homo sapiens in the genus Homo. Possibly the term "less advanced humans" is referring to the Neanderthals, although we did not evolve from Neanderthals. They were very close to modern day humans except they had smaller brains. Genetically, they were close to humans but were assign a species of homo neanderthalensis. They became extent about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. Fossil of modern man and Neanderthals remains have been found in the same areas and dated during the same time period which have lead some people to believe there was cross breeding between the species which may have lead to extinction of the species. Other believe they were driven to extinction because they could not compete with modern man.
Homo sapiens were believed to have evolved from Homo erectus for most of the 20th century. However a discover in Africa around 1970 of a new species, Homo ergaster genetically between Homo erectus and Homo spaiens has lead to the acceptance that homo spaiens evolved from this new species, Homo ergaster.
You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.Proof? Evidence? Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?Adam was formed from dirt
The evidence is we are here. We have not observed anything else besides life begats life. We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it. Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other. Shall I go on or are you too thick?
Believe it or not, many of us really don't just sit around looking at porn all day.We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.
You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.Proof? Evidence? Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?Adam was formed from dirt
The evidence is we are here. We have not observed anything else besides life begats life. We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it. Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other. Shall I go on or are you too thick?
You wanted to know the origin. Once God created the perfect man and woman, that was all that was necessary to populate the world. However, they were tainted by sin and brought death. Still, their genes were pure enough so there wasn't deformities like we have today with incest. It explains why humans lives so long before the flood.
Hi Dalia, what did the dinosaurs evolve from.
Humans belong to a species known as homo sapiens in the genus Homo. Possibly the term "less advanced humans" is referring to the Neanderthals, although we did not evolve from Neanderthals. They were very close to modern day humans except they had smaller brains. Genetically, they were close to humans but were assign a species of homo neanderthalensis. They became extent about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. Fossil of modern man and Neanderthals remains have been found in the same areas and dated during the same time period which have lead some people to believe there was cross breeding between the species which may have lead to extinction of the species. Other believe they were driven to extinction because they could not compete with modern man.
Homo sapiens were believed to have evolved from Homo erectus for most of the 20th century. However a discover in Africa around 1970 of a new species, Homo ergaster genetically between Homo erectus and Homo spaiens has lead to the acceptance that homo spaiens evolved from this new species, Homo ergaster.
The trouble I am having is you are assuming there was evolution. It is more of the facts used to fit the theory. Neanderthals were like modern humans, but probably more sturdier and heartier people. Modern humans would probably not be as fit and strong as them. As I keep saying today's secular scientists have eliminated their opposition who have a different theory.
"Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate."
The homo erectus were similar to modern humans, too. Their characteristics could be similar to those of modern day Eskimos. The anatomical differences are very small and homo erectus could just as well be homo sapien.
Neanderthals Are Still Human!
How Coherent Is the Human Evolution Story?
Why, thank you! What amazes me is how quickly I came up with that. Straight out. No edits. Some of the best jokes seemingly write themselves.Hilarious.Believe it or not, many of us really don't just sit around looking at porn all day.We have not observed anything else besides life begats life.
Yep, when the going gets tough, the tough stick their fingers in their ears and just keep repeating "I can't hear yoouuuuuu, NANANANANANA!!"As for the rest, you're just posting diarrhea. A big mess.
