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.
You're only arguing about macroevolution because you know that that takes many lifetimes, so you feel you can safely ignore the fossils and DNA that are evidence of macroevolution. It's a hollow argument that depends on you ignoring evidence, denying the evidence. And it's hollow because you assert there is evidence of gravity, but deny the evidence of evolution. The human today is different from the human 1000 years ago. An apple falls on someone's head. Both observable, demonstrable phenomena. For the one, you demand minute detail on how and why. For gravity, you don't demand any detail on how and why. And yet, science actually understands the how and why of evolution much better than the how and why of gravity. We don't know why matter is attracted to matter, we don't know how the force exerts itself.
That is not the worst of it.
For science, the bar is perfection and beyond, and still they deny. But for their dogma, there is no standard whatsoever, other than the old , uneducated fools of thousands of years ago said it is so.
Because there are a few luddite dogmatists who just can't bear the truth. Can't accept that their dogma not 100% true. They must accept the unacceptable, and deny the undenyable in order to keep their pie-in-the-sky dream life immortality in one form or another alive.
Thank you for admitting that the motivation for advancing the unprovable theory of evolution is hostility to religion.
Human beings may have been slightly different in 1013 but they were still human beings.
They weren't and never were once chimpanzees.
The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was neither a human nor a chimpanzee.
But we have proof that ancestor existed, because all of us (all humans and all chimpanzees) still have the left-overs from a flue he or she got some ten or eleven millions years ago.
03-15-2013, 03:39 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
[quote=Harrier;28685756]Human beings may have been slightly different in 1013 but they were still human beings.
I'm not quite sure what this statement has to do with anything though, since we're not talking about speciation on a 1000 year time scale and no one is arguing that humans ever were chimps, or descended from chimps.
Last edited by CaseyB; 03-25-2013 at 05:56 PM..
Reason: off topic/rude
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion.
Do you claim that chimpanzees evolved into people?
If so, then you need to provide evidence to support your claim.
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.
