Evolution Dun Exist Because...

[domingo]

Acouple of scientists got together and actually disproved the theory of evolution by running some tests on remains thought to be "missing links" or close ancestors of ours which were actually just doctored so that a certain scientist could say that it was true ..... BUT the scientific community discounted their work because they didn't want to accept the truth .... one species cannot evolve into another ... it is scientifically impossible it has been proven just no-one brings it up any more .... just my 2 cents

------------------
You can only call someone something so many times before they become that which you did not wish them to be!
Bad things happen to bad people!
Founding Father of TLFB

[tracey]

let's not forget that oooh loads of the earth is submerged. how much evidence, i wonder, i beneath the oceans?

the land masses have altered enormously over the aeons of history that we cannot really get to grips with and i still can't find things i dropped in my garden last year!!!! and they're not even buried.

faith and god are non-starters really. if we can't explain evolution and the begining of 'matter/energy, then we certainly can't explain where the literal idea of 'god' came from.

both ideas have the same basic stumbling block - the begining. personally, i prefer to go with a concept that has some hope of an answer at some point in the far distant future. but frankly, the idea that god came into being fully able to create is as daft an idea that i've ever encountered in all my born days.........






------------------


offended mistress of the illuminati

[Prime2U]

Originally posted by tracey: let's not forget that oooh loads of the earth is submerged. how much evidence, i wonder, i beneath the oceans? the land masses have altered enormously over the aeons of history that we cannot really get to grips with and i still can't find things i dropped in my garden last year!!!! and they're not even buried. faith and god are non-starters really. if we can't explain evolution and the begining of 'matter/energy, then we certainly can't explain where the literal idea of 'god' came from. both ideas have the same basic stumbling block - the begining. personally, i prefer to go with a concept that has some hope of an answer at some point in the far distant future. but frankly, the idea that god came into being fully able to create is as daft an idea that i've ever encountered in all my born days.........

That's because we are human, with tiny little minds and huge egos and opinions of ourselves. How we can delude ourselves into thinking we should understand the slightest thing about any power as great as the creator must be is beyond me.
The simple fact of the matter with the whole evolution bit is that science has become seriously flawed where it is concerned. There is no other hypothesis that would ever be so fully supported as true with such a lack of scientific evidence. If this was any other theory with so little proof and no repeatability then scientists everywhere would stomp on it and redicule it. They have to try to push this one forward though, even though it goes against every rule of scientific method, and the core tenants of their creed, because it is the only way they can justify their own self importance and place as the most brilliant in the universe.

------------------


"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon

[250]

can you prove I cannot prove it?
how can you prove I cannot prove it?

therefore I can prove it
therefore, evolution thoery is correct


geez, Rikard

[Sir Real]

Originally posted by Prime2U: One thing to consider is that as a scientific theory if it has no proof then it is worthless. It's not even a real theory, only a hypothesis. They try to ride it in on the coattails of the theory of natural selection to make people think it's true. But in fact the isn't enough hard scientific evidence to support it to amount for diddly squat. Some people say, "well the same can be said for creation". The difference is that creation is not a scientific theory and is based on faith not scientific evidence. It can be true without concrete proof.

Without proof nothing is true it is only spelictive.
Besides Natural Selection is part of Evolution. Gorilla enters deresert and die due to over heating, Another gorilla has less hair and doen't die, gorilla kids don't need hair so are born with less and less of it, Volioa Evolution.

Originally posted by Rikard: Let me give some REAL reasons why evolutions dun exist simple Yopu cannot SEE it can ? And if birds and reptiles and humans have the same styart Where are the missing links? Where are the creatures between reptiles and birds?, between reptiles and mammals? between mammals and birds?

Well they all started from the first little four legged fish that left the ocean and from there it split into Dino' (Which got big) and Mammels( which didn't) (maybe more I'm not expert)Oh inceasts were there too, Dinos split into birds and lizards, mammels split into maruples and they all adeaped to the surround they were faced with to become even more little thingys.

[Grand-Ranger]

Well Rikard.

Your a atheist.

Your not a Evoloutionist.

What do you think our being came from?

------------------


So if in the forest look behind you, because that where the ranger is going to be

Grand-Jester and Spam Monitor of Laughing Hyenas
Messenger of the Emerald Dragon

May a pregnant yak chew on your ear for all eternity.
A guitar solo is to a guitarsist is what a palette is too a painter.
"...But I look at my self as a fragile, inteligent,human being. But there is a clown inside that comes and messes it up everytime" -Jim Morrison

GO DEVILS!!!!

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by tracey: let's not forget that oooh loads of the earth is submerged. how much evidence, i wonder, i beneath the oceans? the land masses have altered enormously over the aeons of history that we cannot really get to grips with and i still can't find things i dropped in my garden last year!!!! and they're not even buried. faith and god are non-starters really. if we can't explain evolution and the begining of 'matter/energy, then we certainly can't explain where the literal idea of 'god' came from. both ideas have the same basic stumbling block - the begining. personally, i prefer to go with a concept that has some hope of an answer at some point in the far distant future. but frankly, the idea that god came into being fully able to create is as daft an idea that i've ever encountered in all my born days.........

The problem I have with that line of reasoning is that it assumes God has a begining (bound by time). God is not bound by time, space or any of the limitations that finite man or the rest of creation is bound by. All things phsyical are subject to time, God is not phsyical He is spiritual.



------------------
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS
Airline ticket to Afghanistan $800
High powered rifle with scope $1000
Hotel room with roof access $100
A clean Head shot on that sack of Horse Manure Usuma Bin Laden PRICELESS!

[Prime2U]

Originally posted by Sir Real: Well they all started from the first little four legged fish that left the ocean and from there it split into Dino' (Which got big) and Mammels( which didn't) (maybe more I'm not expert)Oh inceasts were there too, Dinos split into birds and lizards, mammels split into maruples and they all adeaped to the surround they were faced with to become even more little thingys.

You have absolutely 100% zero proof of this. There may be someone around here more qualified than I am in genetics and biochemistry, but I do have a few graduate courses in both, so I feel like I have to speak up. Everything you are saying here is total assumption without a shred of proveable, much less repeatable evidence.

As far as your response to my post, there can be truth without proof, just not scientific truth. People who believe in creation are not putting forward a scientific theory, so the rules of scientific method do not apply. They can consider creation truth based on faith. The Scientific theory of evolution however, is put forward by scientists. The greater part of it is in fact not a theory at all, but a collection of hypothesis that they tacked onto the theory of natural selection/ evolution to try to get it accepted as true. As scientists, they cannot believe something they hypothesize about as true simply on belief, they need to have proof. So in that respect you are correct. As they have no proof, the all encompassing 'theory of evolution' is meerly a speculation.

You are right about natural selection, although it is what I already said. The theory of natural selection is the ONLY true theory and proven part of the 'theory of evolution'. There is no proof for the 'big bang' or 'evolution from the sea' or any other part of what is today under the umbrella of evolution. Yes, natural selection is evolving, but today the word evolution has been convieniently used to describe many other things besides natural selection in an attempt, and a very successful one I might add, to confuse people into believing that it is all true, and thus give people a reason to disbelieve in God, and to satisfy a few scientists egos.

*clears throat* Ahem. Sorry people. Didn't mean to slip into smart person mode on the forum, but sometimes ya just have to, you know?


------------------


"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon

IMO Evolution seems like a better reasonable choice than not when it comes to possibilities. Genetic similarity and difference is a matter of which genes are turned on or turned off in any particular species. The real thinking behind evolutution is trying to discern with a reasonable scientific method the course of events that led to a species being the species it is. I question any doubt cast towards it's validity as a scientific theory until a broad knowledge base of the activity that has been applied trying to prove and disprove it has been presented.

From what I know of it, the hypothesis it was born from has generally been reinforced by applying theory. ie. The evidence examined generally supports evolutuion's scientific validity as a theory. I really dont recall specifics but I know it involves studing everything from aercheology to gentics. I wouldnt reject it with out lots more info, but in the end it doesnt matter that much to me anyway. The main problem with the theory of evolution is that it contradicts other theories of the beginning of humanity and all other species on the earth.

[Sir Real]

Originally posted by Prime2U: ...blah....blah... As far as your response to my post, there can be truth without proof, just not scientific truth.(stoped reading)....

There can be no truth with out proof, scientific or otherwise. For oh can something be true if you have no evidence to back up the claim, I could say that you have to heads is a truth but is not because I have no truth to prove it.

You cann't say religion is truth because religion is FAITH and FAITH is (as sataed the the dictionary) strong belief without proof; religion; complete condfidence or trust; allegince to a person or cause.
SO if you have faith in god it means you have belief in god which means you believe he exists even without proof. But is you take the second meaning without belief then you have no religion as faith is the back bone of any religion, it would be like me having condfidene that a chiar will not break when I sit on it, but I have not belief that the chair exist.