Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your examples are nothing but a smoke screen and in reality are no example at all, but a lame attempt to make things that are in no way examples, into such. There are just NO credible links, PERIOD. In fact such nonsense and illogical assertions that originally drew me away from this theory and made me sure it was false. I was brought up in a science based home and actually attended the University of Toronto sponsored children's school at the ROM every Saturday from age 6 to 12. We were indoctrinated very deeply with evolution there. Evolution is BAD SCIENCE. It does in no way meet the standards of the rest of scientific knowledge and the entire theory is shot through of holes from the beginning to the end.
lucknow (I like your username by the way, 'Lucknow'. It's good.)
Look now let's get serious.
So what you have just told me is that all the examples I gave you, and lets recap just for clarity: natural selection, genetics, the fossil record, examples of early human forms, adaptation, heredity, variation, mutation, DNA, modern medicine, antibiotics, virus mutation, study of the HIV virus and the study of evolution happening right in front of your eyes, and also the explanation of transitional species to add to the list and lets include 150 years of research conducted by hundreds of thousands of people..every single bit of it is just a smokescreen, right?
So I'm curious what this question was for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow
Give me one single solid proof of the theory. I'll bet you can't!!!!!
I'm scratching my head to think what on earth would convince you to accept evolution. I can't think of anything. So all I can conclude is actually whatever was thrown at you, not matter what, no matter how convincing the evidence (and the evidence is convincing and overwhelming), you would not believe it. You only want to believe what you want to believe.
So rather than address how each of her examples are "smoke screens" you can only just adamantly assert that they are. Gotcha.
You also have ignored the obvious untruth that it is science that is unable to admit "I don't know" where appropriate. Actually science thrives on that and it is religion which, for the most part, finds "I don't know" intolerable, and must insert god into the slightest gap in knowledge if it relates in any way to (im)mortality or origins and, actually, anything where empirical observations might conflict with codified dogma.
Loud insistence on the correctness of your position does not constitute either correctness, nor truth.
I asked for one example of a fossil link on the existence of which the theory falls or not. I have not been given no such link. There are ONLY pure species in the fossil record. There are NO intermediate forms. NONE AT ALL. If there were one scintilla of truth in the theory there would be examples in every single bit of fossil bearing rock you ever looked at. Evolutionists can't get around this fact and so they fabricate bogus links. They have been doing it for parts of 2 centuries. There are just so many impossibilities in the theory it should have been discarded long ago.
Such flights of fancy as similar structures are just insulting. I have a tounge so does a horse and so does a snake. Following the evolutional reasoning we must all have descended from a common ancestor. The entire theory is hogwash. It's so obviously false it causes me to think seriously about the gullibility of the people that buy this fantasy.
I asked for one example of a fossil link on the existence of which the theory falls or not. I have not been given no such link. There are ONLY pure species in the fossil record. There are NO intermediate forms. NONE AT ALL. If there were one scintilla of truth in the theory there would be examples in every single bit of fossil bearing rock you ever looked at. Evolutionists can't get around this fact and so they fabricate bogus links. They have been doing it for parts of 2 centuries. There are just so many impossibilities in the theory it should have been discarded long ago.
Such flights of fancy as similar structures are just insulting. I have a tounge so does a horse and so does a snake. Following the evolutional reasoning we must all have descended from a common ancestor. The entire theory is hogwash. It's so obviously false it causes me to think seriously about the gullibility of the people that buy this fantasy.
Oh, I get it now. You're looking for a Crocaduck. Go see Kirt Cameron.
...I'm scratching my head to think what on earth would convince you to accept evolution. I can't think of anything. So all I can conclude is actually whatever was thrown at you, not matter what, no matter how convincing the evidence (and the evidence is convincing and overwhelming), you would not believe it. You only want to believe what you want to believe.
So I wish you all the best.
Well said. There are several people on this board who "already know the answer" so they never - dare I say it? - evolve.
I'm surprised that people who can take a flat screen TV for granted and not question the science behind it are the same people who won't accept the very same scientific methods that show how evolution works.
Mutation and adaptation ARE NOT evolution. The DNA of those creatures does not change. A big furry 700 pound black bear from Manitoba is the same species as the lightly furred 350 pound black bear from Florida.
Mutation is defined to be a change in the DNA. Learn something. There are 8 species of bear, by the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow
Mutation is always regressive. It in no way can be used as any kind of proof for evolution. Evolution supposes change for the better not for the worse. Mutants don't survive and most often are sterile anyway at least among the higher life forms.
Absolutely, positively NOT true. Mutations are neutral. They can be favorable, unfavorable or indifferent to the survival of an organism. This is not debatable.
Bacteria and humans share 7% of their DNA, humans and mustard grass 15%, and humans and chimps 98%.
Humans and chimps diverged about 7 to million years ago and bacteria and humans much earlier.
Now I'm very curious! (and too lazy to look it up on line).
Would you be so kind as to post a kind of "time-line" list of how humanity developed from a common ancestor and about how long we were in each "stage" of evolution. I'm especially interested in who or what species we were right before primates. Were we ever rodents? Thanks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
