The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution

[sealybobo]

How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.

But you can see a God poofed humans chicken cows pigs goats tigers giraffes zebras into existence in a week/day? That makes sense to you?

Science can explain the answer to your question. Quite eloquently in fact. The only reason it bothers people is because of God. Apparently the theory offends their God and conflicts with their 10000 yr old creation story

 

[sealybobo]

How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.

You must be kidding, right?

No! I don't take Darwin's theory of evolution for granted. No.

---
Ok, then.
The TOE (theory of evolution) does not theorize that an elephant or ANY other species today grew from a pig.
TOE theorizes that ALL current species evolved from a common ancestor, whether that speciation process took thousands of years or millions of years.
.

Did God get tired of trilobites and replace them with dinosaurs? Because they ruled before dinosaurs even existed. Or do creationists doubt this too?

And did God get bored with dinosaurs and the millions of other species that went extinct?

 

[sealybobo]

There is no proof god exists either....shrug....

Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL

And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.

I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.

We didn't know jupitar was there till we saw it. You're speculating a hypothesis based on ignorance. You can't believe there isn't is what you go by. Same way cavemen did

 

[sealybobo]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134008.htm

A newly discovered fossil reveals the evolutionary adaptations of a 165-million-year-old proto-mammal, providing evidence that traits such as hair and fur originated well before the rise of the first true mammals. The biological features of this ancient mammalian relative, namedMegaconus mammaliaformis, are described by scientists from the University of Chicago in the Aug 8 issue of Nature.

"We finally have a glimpse of what may be the ancestral condition of all mammals, by looking at what is preserved in Megaconus. It allows us to piece together poorly understood details of the critical transition of modern mammals from pre-mammalian ancestors," said Zhe-Xi Luo, professor of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago.

Discovered in Inner Mongolia, China, Megaconus is one of the best-preserved fossils of the mammaliaform groups, which are long-extinct relatives to modern mammals. Dated to be around 165 million years old,Megaconus co-existed with feathered dinosaurs in the Jurassic era, nearly 100 million years before Tyrannosaurus Rex roamed Earth.

From feathered dinosaurs to the horses of the John Day Formation, we have a great many transitional fossils. What you people are calling for is a fossil for every little feature change. Since the chances of any creature becoming a fossil are exceedingly small, you are not going to get that.

From our own DNA, we see our relationships to all the other living creatures on Earth. Deny all you want, the reality will outlive your lies.

A LOT of words to explain away a total LACK of evidence to support your SPECULATIVE theory.

I explained earlier, DNA is not a friend to macro-evolution theory. It's is probably the strongest scientific argument to date which dispels such a theory because the mitochondria is unable to reproduce without a certain combination of amino acids and enzymes which it cannot randomly produce through mutations or any other means.

Yes, the layman who doesn't understand genetics may think that it's compelling that we share 98% of our DNA with chimps... it means absolutely nothing from a science perspective. That 2% is very important. We also share 58% of our DNA with a banana... it doesn't mean we have a common ancestor with a banana. I don't care how many billions of years you want to go back... we just don't. Period.

Yet... that is fundamentally what you are trying to say with this theory... that ALL life came from some ubiquitous single cell life form billions of years ago. You don't have the science to support that, you can't support that idea with science and so you proceed to attack people who point that out to you with the same fanatical zeal as the religious folk you seem to despise.

Why does the scientific community disagree with your logic then?

 

[The Great Goose]

How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.

But you can see a God poofed humans chicken cows pigs goats tigers giraffes zebras into existence in a week/day? That makes sense to you?

Science can explain the answer to your question. Quite eloquently in fact. The only reason it bothers people is because of God. Apparently the theory offends their God and conflicts with their 10000 yr old creation story

Poofed?

 

[sealybobo]

How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.

But you can see a God poofed humans chicken cows pigs goats tigers giraffes zebras into existence in a week/day? That makes sense to you?

Science can explain the answer to your question. Quite eloquently in fact. The only reason it bothers people is because of God. Apparently the theory offends their God and conflicts with their 10000 yr old creation story

Poofed?

You tell me. If there was a first human, was it a child or adult?

 

[sealybobo]

How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.

But you can see a God poofed humans chicken cows pigs goats tigers giraffes zebras into existence in a week/day? That makes sense to you?

Science can explain the answer to your question. Quite eloquently in fact. The only reason it bothers people is because of God. Apparently the theory offends their God and conflicts with their 10000 yr old creation story

Poofed?

So I Google "how did God make man?" And the answer is he made man out of dust. Then it says he made the earth and dust out of nothing then made Eve out of Adams rib. So if you believe in one of the main religions you must believe this.

You aren't alone. 50% of Americans believe like you do. But interesting 99% of scientists believe in evolution. The people who know the most disagree with religion.

What better word than poofed would you use? Do you think your religious belief sounds better than poofed?

 

[idb]

Since God was invented by Man does that count as Intelligent Design?
I suspect not...it wasn't one of our better ideas.

 

[sealybobo]

It takes a really weak mind to limit ones self to faith without any reasoning. Evolution has a lot of backing and it is down right scary to find so many haters of science, exploration and rational thought on this board.

Same people who doubt evolution despite mountains of evidence believe their religion with zero evidence it is real.

That's all I need to know.

But I'm glad they challenge it. We advance faster when we are challenged.

I just don't like theists blocking research because of their bias

 

[sealybobo]

It takes a really weak mind to limit ones self to faith without any reasoning. Evolution has a lot of backing and it is down right scary to find so many haters of science, exploration and rational thought on this board.

Oh Co! mon! What has "science" done for you lately?

Ask everyone in a hospital.

Are you greatful for the Age of Enlightenment? Or do you wish we could go back to the ways things were before?

 

[Nosmo King]

Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?

One word: arrogance.

They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal. We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.

Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth. Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them. They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis. With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

 

[The Great Goose]

It takes a really weak mind to limit ones self to faith without any reasoning. Evolution has a lot of backing and it is down right scary to find so many haters of science, exploration and rational thought on this board.

Oh Co! mon! What has "science" done for you lately?

Ask everyone in a hospital.

Are you greatful for the Age of Enlightenment? Or do you wish we could go back to the ways things were before?

I wish we could go back because science is the devil's tool.

 

[Boss]

Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?

One word: arrogance.

They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal. We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.

Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth. Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them. They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis. With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.

Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.

So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.

Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!

 

[frigidweirdo]

It takes a really weak mind to limit ones self to faith without any reasoning. Evolution has a lot of backing and it is down right scary to find so many haters of science, exploration and rational thought on this board.

Oh Co! mon! What has "science" done for you lately?

Ask everyone in a hospital.

Are you greatful for the Age of Enlightenment? Or do you wish we could go back to the ways things were before?

I wish we could go back because science is the devil's tool.

Then go be Amish or something like that, live with no electricity and none of the modern stuff. It's doable.

 

[sealybobo]

Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?

One word: arrogance.

They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal. We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.

Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth. Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them. They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis. With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.

Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.

So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.

Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!

1. Yes the truth is better than the myth

2. It'd be more amazing if we were the only mammals but we are not

 

[rightwinger]

Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?

One word: arrogance.

They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal. We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.

Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth. Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them. They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis. With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.

Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.

So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.

Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!

Who made God?

 

[sealybobo]

How could a pig grow into an elephant? The idea is absurd. If it cant reach branches higher up, then it dies of starvation. If it can then it lives and breeds. But i cant see how a nose would grow longer.

But you can see a God poofed humans chicken cows pigs goats tigers giraffes zebras into existence in a week/day? That makes sense to you?

Science can explain the answer to your question. Quite eloquently in fact. The only reason it bothers people is because of God. Apparently the theory offends their God and conflicts with their 10000 yr old creation story

Poofed?

No wonder cavemen were able to come up with the god hypothesis before science was invented. No evidence or proof is necessary

 

[sealybobo]

Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?

One word: arrogance.

They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal. We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.

Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth. Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them. They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis. With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.

Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.

So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.

Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!

Who made God?

He will say God has always existed. He and cavemen could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.

The cosmos just exist. Always have always will.

We are a way for the universe to know itself. We are the brains. And we aren't alone. There are trillions of other planets with intelligence and trillions more without

 

[Nosmo King]

Why do creationists persist in believing the myth of Genesis?

One word: arrogance.

They cannot accept that mankind is indeed a mammal with all the traits of a mammal. We have hair, we nurse our young, we have live birth, vertebrae, warm blood.

Creationists tell us that the myth of Genesis is the truth, any questioning of that myth is heresy, and that particular myth is, indeed, the truth. Their fear of being regarded as an animal is anathema to them. They claim that the origin of the species is too complex to ponder any further than the Book of Genesis. With that level of curiosity, it's frankly a miracle that mankind ever crawled from caves to explore territory over the next hill, let alone leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

What you are doing here is abandoning Science to discuss religious philosophy. As if to derive that if you present some objections to philosophy it somehow bolsters a weak scientific case. That's not in the scientific method.

Indicating that we are a class of animals we have defined as mammals is not evidence for anything and it doesn't even reject philosophy. Yes, mammals do lots of similar things, so do other various classes of life form. What's interesting is how interdependent all the life forms are upon each other for nutrition, energy and ultimately, survival.

So..... I guess what we are supposed to imagine is.... that somewhere WAYYYYY back in time.... a magical single seed of living organic matter suddenly poofed into existence from nothing... just a random chemical reaction... and from that initial germination of life sprang forth literally trillions of interconnected and interdependent life forms in all their intricate and beautiful glory and wonder? .......For me..... that is a FAR more fascinating, extraordinary and amazing account of how life originated than anything I've ever heard from a creation theorist.

Now.... Only IF you could prove that happened!

I did not abandon science. I am pointing out the arrogance and intellectual shallowness of a creationist position. If anything, the creationists have abandon science to embrace mythology.

And you're right. There was a chemical reaction that initially spawned life. It took the brain pan and intellect of Man to invent a myth about creation, a myth which exists in every culture. It takes science to prove how when and why life began.

 

[Boss]

...could wrap their brains around that but not that the universe might be what is eternal and didn't have to be created.

How is one different from the other?

Who made God?

Made? Explain.