Originally posted by Star428Ok.
I'm not going to keep arguing the same shit over and over with you atheistic fools because it's pointless. You just keep repeating the same shit over and over without showing a shred of proof to back up your ridiculous claims. Evolution is nothing but a "scientific" (LOL) theory. Nothing else. The entire theory of evolution is based on nothing but unfounded and unwarranted assumptions because scientists who support it are horrified at the alternative to evolution theory. I suggest you check out a book by Stephen A Khoch called "The Assumptions Behind the Theory of Evolution". It will open your eyes. You can pick it up on Amazon but it's a bit pricey. If you don't have the money then you can download an abridged version for free. Just do a google search for it. The guy isn't a scientist but he doesn't use the Bible either in his arguments. He's totally unbiased.And, do you really think a God would lower Himself to have offspring with the offspring of an ape? Even if she was a true virgin (as Mary was)?Anyone who believes such nonsense might as well be spitting in His face. That's how much of an insult it is to Him. Sorry,but no, I will never believe that no matter what ANY of you or ANY "scientist" says. Mary was a descendant of Adam and Eve not some animal. 👆
Originally posted by Trocity
He is uneducated about evolution.He reminds me of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron going "Where are the missing links?! Why don't we see half horse, half alligators!?!"
As I thought. You have nothing to back up evolution. That's why it is Theory, not fact. Continue to blow smoke!!!
Originally posted by Star428
I'm not going to keep arguing the same shit over and over with you atheistic fools because it's pointless. You just keep repeating the same shit over and over without showing a shred of proof to back up your ridiculous claims. Evolution is nothing but a "scientific" (LOL) theory. Nothing else. The entire theory of evolution is based on nothing but unfounded and unwarranted assumptions because scientists who support it are horrified at the alternative to evolution theory. I suggest you check out a book by Stephen A Khoch called "The Assumptions Behind the Theory of Evolution". It will open your eyes. You can pick it up on Amazon but it's a bit pricey. If you don't have the money then you can download an abridged version for free. Just do a google search for it. The guy isn't a scientist but he doesn't use the Bible either in his arguments. He's totally unbiased.And, do you really think a God would lower Himself to have offspring with the offspring of an ape? Even if she was a true virgin (as Mary was)?Anyone who believes such nonsense might as well be spitting in His face. That's how much of an insult it is to Him. Sorry,but no, I will never believe that no matter what ANY of you or ANY "scientist" says. Mary was a descendant of Adam and Eve not some animal. 👆
will look into the book
wasn't mary a whore ?
Originally posted by Star428
And, do you really think a God would lower Himself to have offspring with the offspring of an ape? Even if she was a true virgin (as Mary was)?Anyone who believes such nonsense might as well be spitting in His face. That's how much of an insult it is to Him. Sorry,but no, I will never believe that no matter what ANY of you or ANY "scientist" says. Mary was a descendant of Adam and Eve not some animal. 👆
If God was to mate with a descendant of an ape, by default that ape would rise in dignity beyond earthly creature. This argument assumes simple creatures can taint God's dignity.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
TIL evolution is proven false if you cannot make someone understand it even though they are emotionally and spiritually invested in not understanding it.
Athiests are idiots for thinking they know everything.
Star428
And, do you really think a God would lower Himself to have offspring with the offspring of an ape? Even if she was a true virgin (as Mary was)?Anyone who believes such nonsense might as well be spitting in His face. That's how much of an insult it is to Him. Sorry,but no, I will never believe that no matter what ANY of you or ANY "scientist" says. Mary was a descendant of Adam and Eve not some animal.
See, this assume that the origin of something, it's distant predecessors, lowers it. Can something not become more exalted than it's predecessors in your eyes?
Humans are exactly what humans are no matter what. A modern human is a modern human regardless of origin. Why would two identical beings- or rather, the exact same being described differently- be of different quality not for what it is, but for what something else is?
This is something I find interesting- the belief that things cannot be improved.
Originally posted by long pig
TIL christianity is proven false
Question, do you believe Christianity is falsifiable? That is to say, that it makes specific claims that can be proven false by testing?
One of the things about evolution and other scientific hypothesis is they make claims that can be tested and checked.
They are believed accurate because a hypothesis was made that we could check to see if it was false, and then it was checked, and it didn't show to be false in any of the tests.
Athiests are idiots for thinking they know everything.
They don't think they know everything, in general.
Also, atheist isn't a belief. That's like calling all religious people, Hindu, Shinto, Christian, etc., 'theists' as if it were one belief.
Some branches of Buddhism can be called atheist. Scientology. Believe that aliens control us from above. Belief that reality is made purely by collective consensus.
Atheism is not a belief, it is a category of beliefs.
Science is not atheism, it's a tool that tons of people, theistic and atheistic, use.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Evolution is not fact based. Where are the intermediate species in the fossil record? No missing links have been found to my knowledge. Evolution is just a theory. I see no evidence of macroevolution happening today.
Like I posted upthread:
One example I like is orchids, because they change relatively easily, but also hang onto traits.Most orchids do not have spongy roots- and for an obvious reason, they provide no benefit for orchids in the soil.
Some orchids, however, grow on trees, and have spongy roots, which collect rainwater much better. Makes sense so far, right?
Then there's also some orchids that are on the ground, but has spongy roots... and have other traits that show they're closer related to the tree ones.
Or in other words, what happens is we have species of orchids who live entirely on the ground with a trait they don't need on the ground, which fairly obviously, comes from them being descended from ones that grew in trees, but came back down to the soil at some point.
So you can have three species, all similar but distinct, two soil dwelling, one tree dwelling, with a clear progression between them.
In some cases, the tree ancestor has gone extinct but neither soil dweller does, so you see two similar species living right near each other, one with spongy roots that don't seem to do anything special and one without, and unless you study, it just seems kinda odd, but once you know the history it makes perfect sense.
That's a living 'missing link' clearly between the two.
If you want to just talk Hominids, there's these fossil skulls for a nice progression.
And note, that there is just *some* of the links, we have dozens. Here is a bigger- but still not exhaustive- chart with more text, and here is a different one with more. We find more links in this chain, and others, on a regular basis.
(Futurama even did a joke on this, where someone made this argument, then when one was pointed out, another was added, cut to nighttime with a chart of ancestors- *real* ones, mind you- that goes off the screen and is 20+ long)
Also like I posted upthread, there's a species known as the London Underground Mosquito. It's direct ancestor is known, but due to being isolated in the UK subway system and able to live much further north, and go through many generations year-round while it's originator species is seasonal, it can no longer interbreed with it's relative.
And it's evolved in to it's own species due to the circumstances of a human-made system that's existed for under 200 years and which greatly favored divergence (isolated population, year-round food source, short generations).
Whether you're talking fossils or examining living creatures or checking DNA, the evidence is plentiful that evolution (btw, 'macroevolution' is an arbitrary term with no scientific basis) both exists and continues to function.
